Bunuel wrote:
Politician: Unless our nation redistributes wealth, we will be unable to alleviate economic injustice and our current system will lead inevitably to intolerable economic inequities. If the inequities become intolerable, those who suffer from the injustice will resort to violence to coerce social reform. It is our nation’s responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform.
The statements above logically commit the politician to which one of the following conclusions?
(A) The need for political reform never justifies a resort to violent remedies.
(B) It is our nation’s responsibility to redistribute wealth.
(C) Politicians must base decisions on political expediency rather than on abstract moral principles.
(D) Economic injustice need not be remedied unless it leads to intolerable social conditions.
(E) All that is required to create conditions of economic justice is the redistribution of wealth.
This is a good question!:D
Ok, so I'll give my line of reasoning, which I learnt from abhimahna. Sir, you rock!!
So:
From the question:
1. Let "economic equities.. " from the first line be P. Let the statement " Unless redistribution of wealth..." from the first line be Q. Now :
P, unless Q implies ~Q -> P , which means Redistribution of wealth-> Economic Inequities
2. Now let " If inequities become intolerable..." and "suffer from violence" be in the form of If P, then R.
3. Now the last line " It is the nations responsibility..." means that if there is violence then the nation is responsible to interfere. So :
from 1 and 2, we get ~Q -> R ,and from the last statement we get R -> responsibility .
So we end up with : the nation's responsibility to redistribute wealth. B is the answer.
For more explanation, you can refer to the use of conditional logic from abhimahna's post.
Hope it helps!