Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to

Question

Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to govern and that there are sometimes morally legitimate reasons for disobeying the law, as when a particular law prescribes behavior that is clearly immoral. It is also commonly supposed that such cases are special exceptions and that, in general, the fact that something is against the law counts as a moral, as well as legal, ground for not doing it; i.e., we generally have a moral duty to obey a law simply because it is the law. But the theory known as philosophical anarchism denies this view, arguing instead that people who live under the jurisdiction of governments have no moral duty to those governments to obey their laws. Some commentators have rejected this position because of what they take to be its highly  counterintuitive  implications: that no existing government is morally better than any other (since all are, in a sense, equally illegitimate), and (2) that, lacking any moral obligation to obey any laws, people may do as they please without scruple. In fact, however, philosophical anarchism does not entail these claims.

First, the conclusion that no government is morally better than any other does not follow from the claim that nobody owes moral obedience to any government. Even if one denies that there is a moral obligation to follow the laws of any government, one can still evaluate the morality of the policies and actions of various governments. Some governments do more good than harm, and others more harm than good, to their subjects. Some violate the moral rights of individuals more regularly, systematically, and seriously than others. In short, it is perfectly consistent with philosophical anarchism to hold that governments vary widely in their moral stature.

Second, philosophical anarchists maintain that all individuals have basic, no legal moral duties to One another-duties not to harm others in their lives, liberty, health, or goods. Even if governmental laws have no moral force, individuals still have duties to refrain from those actions that constitute crimes in the majority of legal systems (such as murder, assault, theft, and fraud). Moreover, philosophical anarchists hold that people have a positive moral obligation to care for one another, a moral obligation that they might even choose to discharge by supporting cooperative efforts by governments to help those in need. And where others are abiding by established laws, even those laws derived from mere conventions, individuals are morally bound not to violate those laws when doing so would endanger others. Thus, if others obey the law and drive their vehicles on the right, one must not endanger them by driving on the left, for, even though driving on the left is not inherently immoral, it is morally wrong to deliberately harm the innocent.   1 
 C 
 1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) Some views that certain commentators consider to be implications of philosophical anarchism are highly counterintuitive.
(B) Contrary to what philosophical anarchists claim, some governments are morally superior to others, and citizens under legitimate governments have moral obligations to one another.
(C) It does not follow logically from philosophical anarchism that no government is morally better than any other or that people have no moral duties toward one another.
(D) Even if, as certain philosophical anarchists claim, governmental laws lack moral force, people still have a moral obligation to refrain from harming one another.
(E) Contrary to what some of its opponents have claimed, philosophical anarchism does not conflict with the ordinary view that one should obey the law because it is the law.

2 
 A 
 2. The author identifies which one .of the following as a commonly held belief?

(A) In most cases we are morally obligated to obey the law simply because it is the law.
(B) All governments are in essence morally equal.
(C) We are morally bound to obey only those laws we participate in establishing.
(D) Most crimes are morally neutral, even though they are illegal.
(E) The majority of existing laws are intended to protect others from harm.

3 
 B 
 3. The author's stance regarding the theory of philosophical anarchism can most accurately be described as one of

(A) ardent approval of most aspects of the theory
(B) apparent acceptance of some of the basic positions of the theory ,
(C) concerned pessimism about the theory's ability to avoid certain extreme views
(D) hesitant rejection of some of the central features of the theory
(E) resolute antipathy toward both the theory and certain of its logical consequences

4 
 A 
 4. By attributing to commentators the view that philosophical anarchism has implications that are "counterintuitive" ( Highlighted ), the author most likely means that the commentators believe that

(A) the implications conflict with some commonly held beliefs
(B) there is little empirical evidence that the implications are actually true
(C) common sense indicates that philosophical anarchism does not have such implications
(D) the implications appear to be incompatible with each other
(E) each of the implications contains an internal logical inconsistency

5 
 B 
 5. Which one of the following scenarios most completely conforms to the views attributed to philosophical anarchists in lines 30-35?

(A) A member of a political party that is illegal in a particular country divulges the names of other members because he fears legal penalties.
(B) A corporate executive chooses to discontinue her company's practice of dumping chemicals illegally when she learns that the chemicals are contaminating the water supply.
(C) A person who knows that a coworker has stolen funds from their employer decides to do nothing because the coworker is widely admired.
(D) A person neglects to pay her taxes, even though it is likely that she will suffer severe legal penalties as a consequence, because she wants to use the money to finance a new business.
(E) A driver determines that it is safe to exceed the posted speed limit, in spite of poor visibility, because there are apparently no other vehicles on the road.

6 
 C 
 6. It can be inferred that the author would be most likely to agree that

(A) people are subject to more moral obligations than is generally held to be the case
(B) governments that are morally superior recognize that their citizens are not morally bound to obey their laws
(C) one may have good reason to support the efforts of one's government even if one has no moral duty to obey its laws
(D) there are some sound arguments for claiming that most governments have a moral right to require obedience to their laws
(E) the theory of philosophical anarchism entails certain fundamental principles regarding how laws should be enacted and enforced

7 
 D 
 7. The author's discussion of people's positive moral duty to care for one another (lines 36-39) functions primarily to

(A) demonstrate that governmental efforts to help those in need are superfluous
(B) suggest that philosophical anarchists maintain that laws that foster the common good are extremely rare
(C) imply that the theoretical underpinnings of philosophical anarchism are inconsistent with certain widely held moral truths
(D) indicate that philosophical anarchists recognize that people are subject to substantial moral obligations
(E) illustrate that people are morally obligated to refrain from those actions that are crimes in most legal systems

8 
 D 
 8. In the passage, the author seeks primarily to

(A) describe the development and theoretical underpinnings of a particular theory
(B) establish that a particular theory conforms to the dictates of common sense
(C) argue that two necessary implications of a particular theory are morally acceptable
(D) defend a particular theory against its critics by showing that their arguments are mistaken
(E) demonstrate that proponents of a particular theory are aware of the theory's defects

auradediligodo · Accepted Answer

Hi everyone,
Got 7/8 correct in 13:25 minutes, including 4 minutes to read and 9.25 minutes to answer the questions.

P1

In paragraph one the author talks about scenarios in which some people don't want to obey to the rules of government. Philosophical anarchists belong to this group but some commentators object the validity of the theory. Then the author rejects the opinion of such commentators.

Purpose:   To present philosophical anarchism, some views against it and reject such views.

P2

Here the author disputes the first point of view of the commentators by claiming that there are governments that are morally better than others.

Purpose:   To dispute the first point of view of the commentators.

P3

Here the author weakens the second point of view of the commentators. She claims that philosophical anarchists are not devoid of moral values and that such people would still respect moral values that are innate.

Purpose:   To reject the second point of view of the commentators.

Main point

The main point of this passage is to reject the view of some commentators about philosophical anarchism, systematically weakening the claim of the commentators.

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Pre-thinking

Main point question

The main point of this passage is to reject the view of some commentators about philosophical anarchism, systematically weakening the claim of the commentators.

(A) Some views that certain commentators consider to be implications of philosophical anarchism are highly counterintuitive.  trap answer 
(B) Contrary to what philosophical anarchists claim, some governments are morally superior to others, and citizens under legitimate governments have moral obligations to one another.  oposite 
  (C)   It does not follow logically from philosophical anarchism that no government is morally better than any other or that people have no moral duties toward one another.  in line with pre-thinking 
(D) Even if, as certain philosophical anarchists claim, governmental laws lack moral force, people still have a moral obligation to refrain from harming one another.  too specific 
(E) Contrary to what some of its opponents have claimed, philosophical anarchism does not conflict with the ordinary view that one should obey the law because it is the law.  incorrect

2. The author identifies which one .of the following as a commonly held belief?

Pre-thinking

detail question

From P1:

we generally have a moral duty to obey a law simply because it is the law.

(A) In most cases we are morally obligated to obey the law simply because it is the law.  Mentioned 
(B) All governments are in essence morally equal.  the author disagrees 
(C) We are morally bound to obey  only those laws we participate in establishing .  not mentioned 
(D) Most crimes are morally neutral, even though they are illegal.  not mentioned 
(E) The majority of existing laws are intended to protect others from harm.  not mentioned

3. The author's stance regarding the theory of philosophical anarchism can most accurately be described as one of

Pre-thinking

Author's attitude question

The author does not disagree with it and tries to defend it against the commentators' point of views

(A)   ardent   approval of most aspects of the theory  too extreme 
  (B)   apparent acceptance of some of the basic positions of the theory ,  correct 
(C) concerned pessimism about the theory's ability to avoid certain extreme views  no pessimism 
(D) hesitant rejection of some of the central features of the theory  no rejection 
(E) resolute antipathy toward both the theory and certain of its logical consequences  opposite

4. By attributing to commentators the view that philosophical anarchism has implications that are "counterintuitive" (Highlighted), the author most likely means that the commentators believe that

Pre-thinking

Inference question

The author clearly thinks that the commentators are wrong as they think that there are some negative implications (which are untrue) with regards to philosophical anarchism

(A)   the implications conflict with some commonly held beliefs  A statement like " we generally have a moral duty to obey a law simply because it is the law." clearly conflicts with " lacking any moral obligation to obey any laws, people may do as they please without scruple." So here we have some grounds to consider A as correct

(B) there is little empirical evidence that the implications are actually true  cannot be inferred

(C) common sense indicates that philosophical anarchism does not have such implications  not in line with what the commentators claim

(D) the implications appear to be incompatible with each other  incorrect

(E) each of the implications contains an internal logical inconsistency  Okay this option is tempting but incorrect. Let's think about what is  counterintuitive VS logically inconsistent . Can something that is not intuitive still be logically consistent? The answer is yes. So we can see that the term  counterintuitive  and  logically inconsistent  don't match.  SajjadAhmad  What do you think about this explanation?

5. Which one of the following scenarios most completely conforms to the views attributed to philosophical anarchists in lines 30-35?

Pre-thinking

Parallel scenario question

PrashantPonde  maybe you could highlight the interested part of the text. Sine we don't have the lines it is difficult to find the right portion of the passage.

(A) A member of a political party that is illegal in a particular country divulges the names of other members because he fears legal penalties. incorrect
  (B)   A corporate executive chooses to discontinue her company's practice of dumping chemicals illegally when she learns that the chemicals are contaminating the water supply.  In line with what the philosophical anarchists think as they think that there is a moral obligation to respect other people. 
(C) A person who knows that a coworker has stolen funds from their employer decides to do nothing because the coworker is widely admired.  irrelevant  
(D) A person neglects to pay her taxes, even though it is likely that she will suffer severe legal penalties as a consequence, because she wants to use the money to finance a new business.  irrelevant  
(E) A driver determines that it is safe to exceed the posted speed limit, in spite of poor visibility, because there are apparently no other vehicles on the road.  opposite

6. It can be inferred that the author would be most likely to agree that

Pre-thinking

Inference question

Let's evaluate the options

(A) people are subject to more moral obligations than is generally held to be the case  Cannot be inferred 
(B) governments that are morally superior recognize that their citizens are not morally bound to obey their laws  Cannot be inferred 
  (C)   one may have good reason to support the efforts of one's government even if one has no moral duty to obey its laws  Moreover, philosophical anarchists hold that people have a positive moral obligation to care for one another, a moral obligation that they might even choose to discharge by supporting cooperative efforts by governments to help those in need.  
(D) there are some sound arguments for claiming that most governments have a moral right to require obedience to their laws  Cannot be inferred 
(E) the theory of philosophical anarchism entails certain fundamental principles regarding how laws should be enacted and enforced  Cannot be inferred

7. The author's discussion of people's positive moral duty to care for one another (lines 36-39) functions primarily to

Pre-thinking

Function question

Weaken the commentators claim

(A) demonstrate that governmental efforts to help those in need are superfluous
(B) suggest that philosophical anarchists maintain that laws that foster the common good are extremely rare
(C) imply that the theoretical underpinnings of philosophical anarchism are inconsistent with certain widely held moral truths
  (D)   indicate that philosophical anarchists recognize that people are subject to substantial moral obligations
(E) illustrate that people are morally obligated to refrain from those actions that are crimes in most legal systems

8. In the passage, the author seeks primarily to

Pre-thinking

Purpose question

Defend PA

(A) describe the development and theoretical underpinnings of a particular theory
(B) establish that a particular theory conforms to the dictates of common sense
(C) argue that two necessary implications of a particular theory are morally acceptable
  (D)   defend a particular theory against its critics by showing that their arguments are mistaken
(E) demonstrate that proponents of a particular theory are aware of the theory's defects

It's a great day to be alive!

chechaxo · Answer

Secured 7/8 in 18 minutes.. (reasonable time I hope for a passage of this length)
Missed the first question. 
My understanding of the main point of the passage was that the author is NOT too critical of philosophical anarchism and is supportive of the claims by providing premise to point out that the views are not infact counter intuitive as suggested by the opponents.

(A) Some views that certain commentators consider to be implications of philosophical anarchism are highly counterintuitive. 
  - However true, this is not what the author is trying to state in the comprehension.
 
 (B) Contrary to what philosophical anarchists claim, some governments are morally superior to others, and citizens under legitimate governments have moral obligations to one another.
 Not the answer since the author does not canvas for the claim that "some governments are morally superior to the others.

(C) It does not follow logically from philosophical anarchism that no government is morally better than any other or that people have no moral duties toward one another. - Need to understand how my peers would interpret this statement.

(D)  Even if, as certain philosophical anarchists claim, governmental laws lack moral force, people still have a moral obligation to refrain from harming one another .
-  Thought true it is not the main point of the argument.

(E) Contrary to what some of its opponents have claimed, philosophical anarchism does not conflict with the ordinary view that one should obey the law because it is the law. - Is this not the main point, since it is also guarding the claims of the proponents of the philosophical anarchism by rejecting the view held by the opponents that PA is against the ordinary view?

Thanks in advance,
Chechaxo

PrashantPonde · Answer

While the author never exactly gives full-fledged support for legal anarchism, he does find that it’s unfairly criticized. That means the Main Point is that philosophical anarchism may allow for disobeying of the law, but it doesn’t imply all governments are equal, nor does it imply that people can just do whatever they want. Considering the main idea specified above, the author isn’t saying that philosophical anarchism is the way to go, but he is saying that it doesn’t imply what the critics suggest. That’s enough to narrow us down to answer choice (C).

surya167 · Answer

Tricky passage.

Do we see such lengthy passages (With 8 questions) in GMAT? How much time should we ideally spend in solving this entire passage (Reading + answering 8 questions) and what is a fair hit rate (6/8) ?

PrashantPonde · Answer

In GMAT you will see max 4 questions for long passage (spend 3.5 to 4 mins to read the content) and 3 questions for short passage (spend 2.5-3 mins to read the content)

Regarding the passage posted above, you can spend upto 3.5-4 mins in reading the passage, 1 min per summary question and 75-90 seconds per detail question -> Total 12-15 mins.

VeritasPrepRon · Answer

Hi surya167, that's a great question about Reading Comprehension. In fact, this passage is a little long for a GMAT Sentence Correction passage in 2013. Currently, the maximum passage length is about 350 words, and this question is about 450 words. The limit used to be higher, but has come down in the last couple of years as the difficulty of the questions is shifting a little from length of the passage to the content of the questions.

In terms of timing, Veritas recommends reading the passage for about 90 seconds to 2 minutes in order to get an overall feel for the passage and draw a high-level roadmap. Most questions will ask about some specific detail that you will need to go back to the passage to answer properly. Very frequently students will be tempted to answer a question without double checking the text, but that's often how they fall into clever traps. Your goal is to be question-driven, as there are literally dozens of questions that can be asked on any passage, your goal isn't to be able to answer all of them, but rather answer the ones they ask properly and efficiently.

Of course you can employ any strategy you want, but you'll find that frequently you'll read the passage, read the first question and then immediately return to the passage to reread the relevant part. In other words, don't spend too much time on the initial reading if you're going to need to go back anyways. In theory there can be up to 6 questions per passage, but you'll rarely see more than 4 on any given text. Practice your timing on these if you're worried, but you should be pretty close to a 2-minute average per question, including the initial reading. The Veritas strategy aims for about 2 minutes for reading + 90 seconds per question, so 6.5-7 minutes for 3 questions and 7-8 minutes for 4 questions.

Hope this helps!
-Ron

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

4. By attributing to commentators the view that philosophical anarchism has implications that are "counterintuitive" (line 17), the author most likely means that the commentators believe that

Difficulty Level:   750

Explanation

When a question stem is this convoluted, be sure to take the time to understand exactly what the question is looking for.

The question is referring to the fact that commentators call the two implications  “counterintuitive.”  What we’re being asked is how the commentators would define this term, based on the context of the passage. Going back to  Paragraph 1 , we recall that the two implications are that all governments are equally illegitimate and that people would be able to do whatever these please. These implications seem to be completely against the majority opinion presented earlier in the paragraph. This would be what the commentators mean by  “counterintuitive,”  and that perfectly matches  (A).

(B)  This is the more in line with the author’s opinion about the implications, not what the commentators are saying.

(C)  Distortion. The commentators do believe that philosophical anarchism has these implications. The implications just conflict with common sense.

(D)  Distortion. The implications are actually unrelated to one another. They just both go against the grain of common thinking.

(E)  Distortion. Again, the implications are inconsistent with common sense, not internally inconsistent. At best, the author may feel this way, not the commentators themselves.

Answer: A

Hope it helps

sssanskaar · Answer

Experts, can you please help me eliminate option E from Question 7.

Answered every question correctly except this one.!

MBAB123 · Answer

Hey, I am no expert but I hope this helps -

Even without going into the passage, Option E is essentially just restating the question in another form. If you're morally obligated to care for one another, you're obviously not going to harm one another. I agree that this is mentioned in the last paragraph, but the question is why is it mentioned? what is the author trying to do here? The author is looking to support the philosophical anarchists by saying that these anarchists do believe that people have moral obligation as opposed to what some of their critics think.

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 7 
 
This question is concerned with this part of the passage:

"Moreover, philosophical anarchists hold that people have a positive moral obligation to care for one another, a moral obligation that they might even choose to discharge by supporting cooperative efforts by governments to help those in need."

To understand the role of this sentence, first consider the structure of the passage as a whole.

In the first paragraph, the author:
  Introduces a theory: philosophical anarchism 
 Lists two criticisms of that theory: (1) "that no existing government is morally better than any other (since all are, in a sense, equally illegitimate), and (2) that, lacking any moral obligation to obey any laws, people may do as they please without scruple." 
 Says that these criticisms are not valid.

In the second paragraph, the author explains why the first criticism isn't valid.

The overall function of the third paragraph (which question 7 asks about) is to explain why the second criticism isn't valid. To do this, the author makes two separate points:
 1) People have a moral duty to  refrain  from things like murdering/assaulting one another; and
2) People also have a moral duty  to do stuff  to care for one another.

The piece of the passage referenced in question 7 is this second point raised by the author. The positive moral duty to care for one another, a moral duty to  do something , is not used to illustrate that people are morally obligated to  refrain from doing something , as suggested by (E). Instead, the author says that people have the duty to do something to refute the criticism mentioned in the first paragraph.

That's why (E) is out and (D) is the correct answer to question 7.

I hope that helps!

hmandhan · Answer

Hi, in question 7, i am confused with C. Aren't we refuting the criticisms of commentators, which i thought was inferred from C? Please help!

GMATNinja · Answer

I'm not 100% sure that I'm interpreting your question correctly, but I'll give it a swing.

As described in the third paragraph, philosophical anarchists maintain that all individuals have the following obligations:

Do NOT harm others in their lives, liberty, health, or goods.
 
 Care for one another.

What widely held moral truths do either of those go against? If anything, this paragraph seems to be an attempt to show that philosophical anarchism IS consistent with what are likely commonly held moral truths (people should take care of each other and not harm each other).

Perhaps the COMMENTATOR'S belief that philosophical anarchism goes against broader moral truths? But even if that's the case, the AUTHOR is trying to defend philosophical anarchism, not show that it goes against common moral standards.

Hopefully that helps a bit!

Raman109 · Answer

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) Some views that certain commentators consider to be implications of philosophical anarchism are highly counterintuitive. - correct but limited in scope as it doesn't expand on the views of philosophical anarchists.

(B) Contrary to what philosophical anarchists claim, some governments are morally superior to others, and citizens under legitimate governments have moral obligations to one another. - Opposite.

(C) It does not follow logically from philosophical anarchism that no government is morally better than any other or that people have no moral duties toward one another. - The first part simply means that "all governments are morally equivalent." - philosophical anarchism believes that some are good while others are not. Ok.

(D) Even if, as certain philosophical anarchists claim, governmental laws lack moral force, people still have a moral obligation to refrain from harming one another. - Correct but limited in scope.

(E) Contrary to what some of its opponents have claimed, philosophical anarchism does not conflict with the ordinary view that one should obey the law because it is the law. - Opposite. It conflicts.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards