Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct 100%
(01:03)
wrong
based on 6
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Native American tribes seeking monetary reparations from the government are often told, "There is neither wealth nor wisdom enough in the world to compensate in money for all the wrongs in history."
Which of the following most weakens the argument above?
A) Prior wrongs should not be permitted as a justification for present wrongs
B) Even though all wrongs cannot be compensated for, some wrongs can be
C) Since most people committed wrongs, the government should compensate for wrongs with money
D) Monetary reparations upset social order less than other forms of reparation
E) Since money is the basic cause of the wrongs, should it not be the cure?
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
B wont weaken the argument because we dont know what intention government has. All it is saying is there is not enough money to compensate for all the worng things. It can mean that some wrongs can be compensated.
OA is B. There is no explanation but here is what I can provide
Original argument says: "There is neither wealth nor wisdom enough in the world to compensate in money for all the wrongs in history". Therefore, the government is unwilling to pay anything because it says that there will never be enough money to compensate for all wrongs. B weakens the argument by saying that at least some wrong can be compensated for and this will force the government to pay at least something
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.