Last visit was: 10 Jul 2026, 10:40 It is currently 10 Jul 2026, 10:40
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 10 Jul 2026
Posts: 16,477
Own Kudos:
52,885
 [6]
Given Kudos: 6,414
GPA: 3.62
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 16,477
Kudos: 52,885
 [6]
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 26 Aug 2017, 09:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (01:39) correct 30% (01:52) wrong based on 379 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity. But a review of the laws of different societies shows that the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time. Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights. A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that

(A) some human beings do not have any natural rights
(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution
(C) people in one society may have natural rights that people in another society lack
(D) all societies have some institution that protects the rights of an individual in that society
(E) natural rights may exist even though they are not protected by some societies

Master GMAT
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E
User avatar
sobby
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Last visit: 24 Jan 2022
Posts: 441
Own Kudos:
399
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 (S) Kelley '21 (S)  (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Schools: Rotman '20 (S) Kelley '21 (S)  (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 441
Kudos: 399
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 26 Aug 2017, 10:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
SajjadAhmad
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity. But a review of the laws of different societies shows that the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time. Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights. A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that

(A) some human beings do not have any natural rights
(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution
(C) people in one society may have natural rights that people in another society lack
(D) all societies have some institution that protects the rights of an individual in that society
(E) natural rights may exist even though they are not protected by some societies

Master GMAT
Show more

"Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights"

E says that there are natural right but they are not protected by some societies ...

Not entirely convinced , but by POE ,E seems consistent with the Argument ...Rest other out of scope to me ....
User avatar
nkmungila
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Last visit: 02 Jul 2019
Posts: 109
Own Kudos:
929
Given Kudos: 60
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V38
Posts: 109
Kudos: 929
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 26 Aug 2017, 22:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
E
E clearly Says there is natural Right. But They are not protected by Some society
avatar
Prateek176
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2021
Posts: 171
Own Kudos:
92
Given Kudos: 87
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: ISB '21 (D) IIMC MBAEx "21 (WL)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 4
Schools: ISB '21 (D) IIMC MBAEx "21 (WL)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 171
Kudos: 92
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 28 Mar 2018, 13:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma , mikemcgarry , MagooshExpert

I am confused in between B and E. Could anyone please elaborate?
User avatar
SonalSinha803
User avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Last visit: 18 Feb 2019
Posts: 302
Own Kudos:
324
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 302
Kudos: 324
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 28 Mar 2018, 22:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How can E be right, when it says - human rights 'may' exist. The word 'may' implies a possibility...but not a guarantee...the sentence is weak.

But, to put one's point, a defender has to be assertive in his tone. Thus, I feel B is a better option. Had E been assertive by saying 'do' instead of 'may' it would have been the answer.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 09 Jul 2026
Posts: 16,558
Own Kudos:
80,279
 [1]
Given Kudos: 486
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,558
Kudos: 80,279
 [1]
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 29 Mar 2018, 00:21
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
prateek176
VeritasPrepKarishma , mikemcgarry , MagooshExpert

I am confused in between B and E. Could anyone please elaborate?
Show more


Argument:

Some philosophers - there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity.

Another theory - But the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time.
Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights.

The other theory negates the theory of some philosophers by saying that since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights. Just because the rights are not protected, it does not mean that the rights are not there. It is an assumption made by the other theory supporters that if there are natural rights, all societies would protect them.

Question: A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that ...

Choice (E) gives us the logic we discussed above. Hence it is correct.

(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution
This statement might be true but it is not relevant to our argument. We are only concerned about whether natural rights exist. Constitutional rights are not a matter of concern at all. We need to give a response to the objection raised by the other theory. (B) does not respond to it. We need something more in line with "the constitution may not safeguard natural rights even though they may exist"
User avatar
SonalSinha803
User avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Last visit: 18 Feb 2019
Posts: 302
Own Kudos:
324
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 302
Kudos: 324
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 01 Apr 2018, 05:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma
prateek176
VeritasPrepKarishma , mikemcgarry , MagooshExpert

I am confused in between B and E. Could anyone please elaborate?


Argument:

Some philosophers - there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity.

Another theory - But the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time.
Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights.

The other theory negates the theory of some philosophers by saying that since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights. Just because the rights are not protected, it does not mean that the rights are not there. It is an assumption made by the other theory supporters that if there are natural rights, all societies would protect them.

Question: A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that ...

Choice (E) gives us the logic we discussed above. Hence it is correct.

(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution
This statement might be true but it is not relevant to our argument. We are only concerned about whether natural rights exist. Constitutional rights are not a matter of concern at all. We need to give a response to the objection raised by the other theory. (B) does not respond to it. We need something more in line with "the constitution may not safeguard natural rights even though they may exist"
Show more
Yes now I get the true reason. Many thanks [GRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES] [GRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES]

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
User avatar
work2
User avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2025
Last visit: 10 Jul 2026
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 02 Jul 2026, 03:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I'm confused- why can't it be D?

Sajjad1994
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity. But a review of the laws of different societies shows that the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time. Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights. A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that

(A) some human beings do not have any natural rights
(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution
(C) people in one society may have natural rights that people in another society lack
(D) all societies have some institution that protects the rights of an individual in that society
(E) natural rights may exist even though they are not protected by some societies

Master GMAT
Show more
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 09 Jul 2026
Posts: 1,536
Own Kudos:
13,061
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,536
Kudos: 13,061
 [1]
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 02 Jul 2026, 15:15
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity. But a review of the laws of different societies shows that the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time. Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights.

A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that

The objection assumes that if natural rights existed, they would be protected by every society’s laws. The defender should challenge that link: a right can exist morally or naturally even if some societies fail to recognize or protect it legally.

(A) some human beings do not have any natural rights

This contradicts the theory being defended. Natural rights are said to belong to all human beings.

(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution

This may be true, but it does not answer the objection that no right is universally protected.

(C) people in one society may have natural rights that people in another society lack

This also conflicts with the idea of natural rights belonging to all humans by virtue of humanity.

(D) all societies have some institution that protects the rights of an individual in that society

This does not answer the objection. The issue is whether the same rights are universally protected, not whether each society protects some rights.

(E) natural rights may exist even though they are not protected by some societies

This is correct. It directly attacks the objection’s assumption. The absence of universal legal protection does not prove the absence of natural rights.

Answer: (E)
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 10 Jul 2026
Posts: 5,883
Own Kudos:
33,636
Given Kudos: 712
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,883
Kudos: 33,636
Some philosophers have argued that there exist certain human or natur 03 Jul 2026, 02:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi work2,

Good question, because (D)looks like it's on the defender's side (it talks about societies protecting rights), but it actually doesn't answer the objection at all.

First, pin down what the objection is really saying:

"Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights."

The hidden assumption is: for a natural right to exist, it must be protected everywhere. So the defender's job is to break that link - to say a right can exist even where it isn't protected. That's exactly what (E) does.

Now look at (D):"all societies have some institution that protects the rights of an individual in that society."

- Notice the phrase "some" rights, and "in that society." (D) only says each society protects some of its own rights. That is not the same as any single right being protected universally across all societies.
- So even if (D) were true, the objection stands untouched - the objection was about universal protection, and (D) never establishes that.
- On top of that, (D) is an unsupported factual claim about institutions, not a statement about whether natural rights exist. The whole debate is about existence, and (D) never addresses existence.

In short, (D) changes the subject to "do societies protect rights?" when the defender needs to answer "can rights exist without being protected?"

Turn one knob to feel it: imagine the choice read instead - "natural rights exist even though no single society protects all of them." Now it speaks directly to existence-vs-protection, and it defends the theory. That rewrite is basically (E). (D) never makes that move, which is why it fails.

Answer: E

work2
I'm confused- why can't it be D?


Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7395 posts
AbhishekP220108
702 posts