Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n

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

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.

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.

Can someone pls explain y E is wrong? or out of scope?

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"

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.

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?

Analysis:

Literally:
- Nation not person
- no thoughts or feelings
- perform no actions
- no moral rights or responsibilities

Nation: moral rights or responsibilities --> to survive, but literally nation has no moral rights or responsibilities.
Author is trying to say: To survive, nation needs to be attributed moral rights or responsibilities, but literally nation has no moral rights or responsibilities.



(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices --> "its citizens to make sacrifices" is just an example & is given in the premise. B is better, more conclusive

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false --> correct: align w/ analysis

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame --> this -ve side, author is trying to say +ve

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf --> too extreme, author is not trying to say this

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

"citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it"

Derive the sentance above wrong, it is clearly stating that citizans are beleving nation has moral attribute which is wrong as shown in starting of the passage. So clearly option B wins

In B, I dont get the words- some beliefs that are literally false..what beliefs.. and why false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-GVTDlSNE0

Hey, GMAT students -- you don't need to be able to do problems like this one. I teach both exams and this was so obviously an LSAT question I knew even before I read the little tag at the bottom of the question. This kind of question, with this really difficult phrasing, and with its really subtle and weird use of logic, simply wouldn't show up on the GMAT. Time is the only non-renewable resource -- don't waste time on this kind of question. I mean, why not study some calculus and logarithms while you're at it? They also won't show up on the test. Your health, sanity, and time are important. Don't study from LSAT content unless you're working with a teacher who can help you pick out questions that actually could show up on the GMAT.

Argument says: 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 meaning thereby that if citizens do not attribute these false moral rights or responsibilities, the nation cannot survive. Nothing else other than these false moral rights or responsibilities will prompt citizens to make sacrifices.

FB----> Nation Survives

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices Option says something other than FB which the argument completely denies. Therefore, incorrect

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false In other words, If citizens do not have false beliefs, the nation cannot survive. FB--->NS. Therefore, Correct

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

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

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

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.