Some Religions whose one virtue is tolerance still do insist that one is the originator of one's own fate and that one’s fate cannot be influenced by anyone other than oneself and such people have to pay for their sins one day. In spite of such a hard stance, such thinking has led to some people viewing terrorism and naxalism in soft terms. People still think that earthly catastrophies do merit sympathy and therefore contribute to national disaster relief funds floated by genuine bodies, pouring in liberal assistance including financial contributions. Some others donate a certain percentage to orphanages every month from their monthly income.

Which of the following, if true, would best resolve the paradox in the statements above?

A. Religions have no systematic Relief funds and so the people at large have to depend upon other funds.
B. Such philosophies are nice to hear than practice
C. Some social bodies criticize the government for national catastrophies saying that the government is incompetent to deal with such emergencies.
D. Mass phenomena are not influenced by individual commissions and omissions
E. Many of the people so affected by such calamities are members of the same religions which preach these humane gestures
_________________

Vince

Thank you; since edited

daagh
_________________

@smartyman

Some religions preach tolerance; But still they say criminals should not be spared and ought to be punished for their sins one day; But even such hard- standers do give allowance for some mis directed mass movements like terror and Naxalism, arguing that after all there must be some justification for such mass wrong doing. Similarly, they also feel that great disasters are not the result of any individual’s crimes. So they liberally donate for national earthquake funds, Tsunami relief funds flood –relief funds, and cyclone funds etc

Hope it is better now
_________________

D explains only one part of the result i.e. people donating to national disaster relief funds. But i can't see how it explains people donating to orphanages.

Why not C ? I think that point explains the paradox that on hand religions say that one should pay for their sins and on the other hand they expect Govt to provide assistance

Can someone please post the OE? Also what is the source of this question?

phew, 3:20 mins. that was loonngggg.
omitting A,B and C was easy.

Between D and E, was a tough call. Very frankly, the only was i narrowed down to D was through POE. I mean that was the only way i could figure solving this question.

whats the source by the way?

Responding to a pm:

I am sorry but I do not understand the argument.

Some Religions whose one virtue is tolerance still do insist that one decides one's own fate and that people have to pay for their sins one day. - Ok, so there is a contradiction here - the religions preach tolerance but say that people are responsible for their own fate and have to pay for their sins.

In spite of such a hard stance, - I am assuming this is about people paying for their sins

such thinking has led to some people viewing terrorism and naxalism in soft terms. - I am not sure what "such thinking" refers to and which thinking leads to people viewing terrorism in soft terms. There is only one thinking discussed before and that is "people paying for their sins". If it leads to soft view on terrorism then probably they don't blame the terrorists. Then, perhaps it means that the victims are responsible for their own fate and pay for their sins! So perhaps people are not sympathetic to those who are victims of terrorist attacks (which doesn't really make a lot of sense!).

People still think that earthly catastrophies do merit sympathy. Some others donate a certain percentage to orphanages every month from their monthly income. - This works with my previous analysis and presents a paradox. People still donate to victims of natural calamities and to orphanages.

So at the end of it all, it seems to me that the paradox is this - People don't sympathise with the victims of terrorism but donate to victims of natural calamities.

Then, only option (B) makes some sense to me that they believe people are responsible for their own fate but when it comes to practice, they donate and help.
What is the source of this question?
_________________

If we read closely, we can understand the paradox in play here.

On one hand, the religions with tolerance as a virtue believe in individual fate or karma. On the other, they also have soft corner on terrorism and naxalism. They also provide support in case of catastrophes. All these events are mass events that don't depend on individual fates.

In case of pre-thinking, we have to come-up with an excuse that though they believe in individual karma, they also provide help and have soft corner for events that are mass events that essentially do not depend on individual fates.

Possible answer 1: by helping in these mass events, they are trying to practise their tolerance, to make their karma better.
Possible answer 2: they know that individual karma doesn't play any part in mass events.

The actual answer is precisely the 2nd prethinked ans.

All the best!!