GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Oct 2018, 14:08

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2012
Posts: 16
Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2013, 03:14
7
18
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

26% (02:11) correct 74% (02:04) wrong based on 836 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation __________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms

Source: LSAT

_________________

If questions jerk in your mind, then give me a KUDOS

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2013
Posts: 144
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2013, 20:03
4
Boiled down, this stimulus states that nations have no moral obligations, but that nations cannot survive without its citizens attributing such obligations to it (aka the citizens having false beliefs). This leads nicely into answer choice B, which states that citizens must have FALSE beliefs in order for the nation to survive.

Answer choices C-E are all out of scope here. Answer choice A comes close, but because the argument leaves no room for anything other than these false beliefs to allow the nations to survive (the argument states "...nothing else could prompt citizens...," we must outrule A and pick answer choice B.

I hope this helps!!!
_________________

Brandon
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

If you found this post helpful, please give me kudos!!! :)

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 133
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2013, 20:34
1
creativeminddu wrote:
Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation _______.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms


It seems to me that only A, B are talking about the survival of nation which is the scope of passage/ argument. But one sec on the C also fits properly. Now put A first;- Survival depends on Beliefs Other than the False belief which is stated, hence wrong. C- talks about praise which is OK but ask talks about the blame, which is not the scope of argument. Now B - which talks about many of citizens - some literally false beliefs, need to figure out what the author is, yes a philosopher- literary person, correct.



Hope it helps
_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 30
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2015, 07:25
Can someone explain the following in simple words: "But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands"
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2015
Posts: 94
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2016, 09:02
Can someone pls explain y E is wrong? or out of scope?
_________________

You have to dig deep and find out what it takes to reshuffle the cards life dealt you

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Posts: 136
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
GPA: 3.92
WE: Operations (Transportation)
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2016, 18:36
E is wrong as it never relates to the argument.

Argument talks about nation,people & sacrifices but option E talks about its use i.e literal and metaphorical.
To complete the argument,one must use a premise from the argument.
Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1314
Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2017, 05:22
1
1
creativeminddu wrote:
Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation _______.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms


Quote:
Premise 1: Nations are not literally persons.

Sub. Conclusion: Nations have NO moral rights or responsibilities.

Premise 2: Nations cannot survive unless many of its citizens attribute moral rights or responsibilities to them

Nations surviveAttribute rights/responsibilities

The conclusion indicator "obviously" in the last sentence shows this to be a Main Point question. If nations cannot survive unless we attribute moral rights to them, but nations actually don't have such rights, it logically follows that a nation cannot survive unless we hold beliefs that are literally false. The combination of the sub. conclusion and the second premise proves answer choice (B) to be correct.

Whether nations can be a target of moral praise or blame (C) is not a relevant consideration, and falls entirely outside the scope of the argument. The author's purpose is to illustrate some of the factors necessary for the survival of nations, not whether nations can be blamed or praised for something.

(E) is incorrect, because the author never suggested that nations do not exist (literally). They do. It is the qualities we attribute to nations - not the nations themselves - that should be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms.


Remember that the word “some” just means “one or more.” So all we need is one example of a false belief that needs to be held by citizens in order for nations to survive. And we have it… if citizens don’t believe the falsehood that their nations have moral rights, then nations will fail to survive. This is logical, conservatively stated completion of the argument.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1710
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2017, 15:05
this is a conclusion question, not an inference. The first sentence of the passage does not do any help to the conclusion. The key reason is the second sentence.

This question is unlikely to appear in gmat.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 55
Reviews Badge
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2017, 10:27
1
This question is a bit ridiculous...1200-level question if you ask me:

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation __________.

The first sentence tells us a KEY PREMISE that we need to solve this problem:
Nations are NOT humans; Nations don't have rights and responsibilities. Thus ONLY humans have rights and responsibilities. (You can argue here that animals/aliens could potentially have rights and responsibilities but the over-usage of "literally" tells us that the author is definitely assuming only humans can have them)

Then the second sentence says citizens attribute right and responsibilities, combining the logic from above, means that citizens believe nations are human. This is a false belief because of the premise aforementioned.
_________________

Insanity at its finest.

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n &nbs [#permalink] 29 Nov 2017, 10:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.