Bunuel wrote:
Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s policies. Only total divestment—the sale of all stock in companies that have factories or business offices in X—can do this. Therefore, the university should divest totally.
Professor B: Our aim should be to encourage X to change its policies. Partial divestment is the best way to achieve this aim. Therefore, the university should sell its stock only in companies that either sell goods to X’s government, or do the majority of their business in X, or treat their workers in X unfairly.
Professor A’s and Professor B’s arguments differ in which of the following ways?
(A) They state the same goal but propose different ways of achieving it.
(B) They state different goals but propose the same way of achieving them.
(C) They state different goals and propose different ways of achieving them.
(D) They disagree about whether the university should sell any stock at all.
(E) They disagree about whether X’s policies are objectionable.
I find it hard to differentiate among
A) B) and
C).
I mean, being really really literal, the goals and respective methods of the two professors are different, okay.
But both more or less state that X should change its policies. Why else would someone like Professor A say that there has to be a strong moral statement with radical measures?
Likewise, the two methods of the two professors are both divestion. One partially and one full divestion. Are the methods really that different?
So A) and B) are also pretty close answers.
From my perspective one could argue a lot about the questions' OA. Or do i have a fundamental flaw in my reasoning/thinking?