To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp : Reading Comprehension (RC)

B

Debashis Roy

Manager

Joined: 23 Aug 2017

Posts: 97

Own Kudos [?]: 18 [1]

Given Kudos: 9

Schools: ISB '21 (A)

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

12 Mar 2019, 02:45

1

Kudos

Q.4...Why not (A)?..
Throughout the passage the author has passively supported the Rawls theoory which can be termed as Scholarly neutrality....Even the doubt about some of its implications as mentioned in option E is presented as Rawls view and not the author's himself.

B

ritika50

Intern

Joined: 25 Sep 2017

Posts: 5

Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]

Given Kudos: 95

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

14 Mar 2019, 21:51

1

Kudos

Hello ,
For Q3,Can someone explain why 'c 'is wrong as in the last para the author and rawl do agree on providing the necessary good ?

regards

B

cfc26

Intern

Joined: 27 Dec 2018

Posts: 6

Own Kudos [?]: 22 [7]

Given Kudos: 14

Location: United States

Schools: HBS '22 (D) Kellogg '22 (M) Haas '22 (D) Duke '22 (A$)

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

15 Mar 2019, 14:04

7

Kudos

Debashis Roy wrote:

Q.4...Why not (A)?..
Throughout the passage the author has passively supported the Rawls theoory which can be termed as Scholarly neutrality....Even the doubt about some of its implications as mentioned in option E is presented as Rawls view and not the author's himself.

Hi there,

I chose answer E because there were several adjectives used in the passage that indicated the author was not neutral. Some of those sentences (with the opinionated word) are below:

"Rawls offers an ingenious answer."

"Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance."

"Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." .... Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings."

The first two are praising his intelligence, but the use of the word "Unfortunately" in the last sentence indicates that the author is unhappy about at least one implication of Rawl's theory. That is why I chose E, because it has both positive and negative attitudes towards this theory.

I hope this makes sense, please let me know if you have any other questions.

CFC

B

ritika50

Intern

Joined: 25 Sep 2017

Posts: 5

Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]

Given Kudos: 95

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

16 Mar 2019, 00:34

1

Kudos

cfc26 wrote:

ritika50 wrote:

Hello ,
For Q3,Can someone explain why 'c 'is wrong as in the last para the author and rawl do agree on providing the necessary good ?

regards

Hi Rikita,

Let me know if this makes sense. I chose Answer A for this question because it has the strongest evidence that both the author and Rawls agree on the idea of treating one person's preferences as more important than total. This is alluded to in the following quote:

"Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many.""

Option C feels like a good choice because of the last paragraph, but the author subtly indicates that they do not agree with this statement. Their use of the word "unfortunately" in the below quote from the last paragraph indicates that the author would prefer not to make society pay for the goods of other individuals, while Rawls indicates that he agrees with that concept.

"Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. .... Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings."

Let me know if this makes sense.

CFC

Thanks for clarifying that makes sense , as i did not look for the word unfortunately to differentiate that option from A.

Regards

B

Raj30

Manager

Joined: 07 Jan 2019

Posts: 55

Own Kudos [?]: 78 [0]

Given Kudos: 103

Concentration: International Business, Finance

WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

21 Mar 2019, 03:18

Debashis Roy wrote:

Q.4...Why not (A)?..
Throughout the passage the author has passively supported the Rawls theoory which can be termed as Scholarly neutrality....Even the doubt about some of its implications as mentioned in option E is presented as Rawls view and not the author's himself.

In Para 2 author says, Rawls has an 'ingenious' answer.
In further para he again says, rawl has a 'clever' approach...This shows admiration by author

L

Skywalker18

Verbal Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Dec 2013

Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone

Posts: 2101

Own Kudos [?]: 8808 [0]

Given Kudos: 171

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

GPA: 3.2

WE:Information Technology (Consulting)

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

15 Apr 2019, 00:13

All correct except question 3 in 9 mins including almost 5 mins to read

Para 1- utilitarianism -- flaw
Para 2- Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just
Para 3- veil of ignorance- cake experiment
Para 4- Why it works
Para 5- primary goods- at least a minimum amount; redistribution of primary goods

1) The author's primary purpose in the passage is to
(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem- Correct; Rawls's theory of justice addresses the problem in an ingenious way

2) According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory?
(A) a thought experiment- Correct

Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.

4) The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of
(E) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications- Correct;

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer.
Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance.
Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings.

3) With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.

In question 3, I chose option C but the OA is A. Please help.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyTargetTestPrep , DmitryFarber , VeritasKarishma , generis , other experts

L

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Posts: 14817

Own Kudos [?]: 64900 [0]

Given Kudos: 426

Location: Pune, India

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

23 Apr 2019, 01:41

Expert Reply

Skywalker18 wrote:

All correct except question 3 in 9 mins including almost 5 mins to read

Para 1- utilitarianism -- flaw
Para 2- Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just
Para 3- veil of ignorance- cake experiment
Para 4- Why it works
Para 5- primary goods- at least a minimum amount; redistribution of primary goods

1) The author's primary purpose in the passage is to
(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem- Correct; Rawls's theory of justice addresses the problem in an ingenious way

2) According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory?
(A) a thought experiment- Correct

Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.

4) The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of
(E) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications- Correct;

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer.
Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance.
Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings.

3) With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.

In question 3, I chose option C but the OA is A. Please help.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyTargetTestPrep , DmitryFarber , VeritasKarishma , generis , other experts

For question no 3, we get that the answer is (A) from 1st paragraph:

To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against ... utilitarianism... At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. (Words such as "odd", "incredibly" show that the AUTHOR is against this fallout of Utilitarianism) Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many." (So RAWL was against this fallout of Utilitarianism too)

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
So both Rawl and the author agree on (A)

(C) is incorrect as per the last paragraph.

Rawls thinks that people want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, ... Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. (RAWL thinks the everyone should get at least a min amount of these goods) Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary. (AUTHOR says "unfortunately this is redistributionist..." He does not agree with this)

(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.

Hence they do not agree on (C)

G

GDT

Senior Manager

Joined: 02 Jan 2020

Posts: 250

Own Kudos [?]: 102 [0]

Given Kudos: 477

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

30 Mar 2020, 08:59

MentorTutoring

In Q3, B is incorrect because it says that unless self-interest is kept aside, we can't be fair but in the passage we are given an example of a child wherein he may well have self-interest but lacks knowledge of whether he'll be getting cake and so behaves in a fair manner. Is this reasoning correct?

Thanks in advance

L

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Posts: 3512

Own Kudos [?]: 6857 [4]

Given Kudos: 500

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

30 Mar 2020, 14:02

4

Kudos

Expert Reply

GDT wrote:

MentorTutoring

In Q3, B is incorrect because it says that unless self-interest is kept aside, we can't be fair but in the passage we are given an example of a child wherein he may well have self-interest but lacks knowledge of whether he'll be getting cake and so behaves in a fair manner. Is this reasoning correct?

Thanks in advance

Hello, GDT, and thank you for tagging me. Since I have never read the passage, jumping straight to question 3 took me 3:16, but I did answer correctly. The following is my rationale:

akanshaxo wrote:

3) With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.

Notice the toned-down language, a feature of many correct answers. We do not get any absolutes, but instead we get situations and permissible. It may not be the case that the author would argue that, in general, one person's preferences [are] more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences, but recall the mob-execution scene at the end of paragraph 1. Such a scene, with a mob acting against an innocent person for its own satisfaction, is exactly the type of situation for an exception to be made. The last line of the paragraph makes it clear that the author and Rawls agree on this point, accordingly rejecting the utilitarian view, as it is outlined. This answer is one that cannot be refuted. Green light.

akanshaxo wrote:

(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.

Notice the absolute, straight-arrow condition and outcome here, namely that individuals must set aside their own self-interest, or else... Such definitive language is typically an overstatement of the case, and this usage is no different. Not only do we have the cake example in paragraphs 3-4 that explicitly goes against this claim, but keep in mind, too, that for this answer to be correct, we would need to see such a linear connection appear in the passage. That is, even without the cake, we could not speculate that this single condition would be required to produce the outcome of making fair judgments. Overstatement is overstatement, plain and simple. Red light.

akanshaxo wrote:

(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.

This is a distortion of the last line of the passage: If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary. You have to back up to the definition of a primary good at the beginning of the paragraph to assess the claim. The second sentence defines "primary goods" as including rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Notice that a good in general or the pluralized goods are not mentioned. A close reading pulls this one apart. Red light.

akanshaxo wrote:

(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.

Now we are getting into opinions, about which we have no information. Furthermore, the superlative most at the end of the answer choice stands out as a red flag. The passage defines "primary goods" in the last paragraph, as mentioned above. It does not draw a distinction among them. Red light.

akanshaxo wrote:

(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.

This is the very position that both the author and Rawls reject at the end of paragraph 1. On this point the two agree. Notice the final line: Rawls accordingly complains about this aspect of the utilitarian view. This answer choice represents a reversal of what we want. Red light.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew

D

auradediligodo

Senior Manager

Joined: 31 Jan 2019

Posts: 368

Own Kudos [?]: 706 [2]

Given Kudos: 67

Location: Switzerland

Concentration: General Management

Schools: INSEAD Aug'24 intake Stanford '26 Columbia CBS'26 HBS '26 Haas '26 Wharton '26

GPA: 3.9

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

01 Apr 2020, 00:47

1

Kudos

Hi everyone,
Got all correct except for the last question in 11:10 minutes, including 5:30 minutes to read.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1

In this paragraph we are presented with Rawl and his idea of justice. But before introducing it, the author explains that Rawl was opposed to utilitarianism as it promoted unfair situations such as the killing of innocents because the majority of the population would be happy about it.

Purpose: To explain the concept against which Rawl bases his theory.

P2

In this paragraph the author presents Rawl's idea of justice in contrast to the utilitarian idea, that is everything that comes from a fair procedure is fair.
Note: the author defines Rawl's idea ingenious

Purpose: To present Rawl's idea of justice in contraposition with the utilitarian idea

P3

Here the author tries to explain Rawl's idea of a fair procedure (note: the author describes Rawl as clever). Rawl uses the example of the child who has to cut a cake but does not know which piece of cake he will get.

Purpose: to explain Rawl's idea of a fair procedure

P4

In this paragraph the author explains more the metaphor of the veil of ignorance. The idea is that when someone is ignorant of their circumstances they will act in a fair way.

Purpose: to explain more the metaphor of the veil of ignorance

P5

In the last paragraph the author is in stark contrast with Rawl. While Rawl thinks that everyone should get a minimum amount of primary goods, the author thinks that this is a redistributionist idea and that in order to get such primary goods other people can be damaged.

Purpose: to discard an aspect of Rawl's theory

Main point

To evaluate Rawl's theory of justice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The author's primary purpose in the passage is to

Pre-thinking

Main point question

To evaluate Rawl's theory of justice.

(A) show why a once-dominant theory was abandoned
We don0t know whether the utilitarian theory was abandoned or not. OUT

(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem
Correct and broad enough

(C) sketch the historical development of a celebrated theory
Historical developments are not mentioned

(D) debate the pros and cons of a complex theory
no debate

(E) argue for the truth of a controversial theory.
the theory is not controversial per the author

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory?

Pre-thinking

Detail question

From the second last paragraph: Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation,

(A) a thought experiment
(B) a process of elimination
(C) an empirical study of social institutions
(D) a deduction from a few basic principles
(E) a consideration of the meaning of words

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

Pre-thinking

Inference question

We need to evaluate the option choices

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
We can infer this option from the following lines from P1:

Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."

Note a couple of things here: the author is upset by the fact that according to the utilitarian view some innocent people might die. So we can infer that the author prefers Rawl's view on the topic to the utilitarian view. Hence they both agree on this point

(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
too extreme

(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
In the last paragraph we can see how the author's point of view and Rawl's differ here

(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
too extreme because of most

(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.
both Rawl and the author don't agree here. Opposite

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of

Pre-thinking

Author's attitude question

We have some key words to consider here: clever and ingenious from P3 and P2 and unfortunately from the last paragraph. Hence we can say that the author appreciates some aspects of Rawl's theory while she discards other aspects.

(A) scholarly neutrality with respect both to its objectives and its development
the author is not neutral

(B) disdain for its pretensions camouflaged by declarations of respect for its author
too extreme

(C) sympathy with its recommendations tempered with skepticism about its cogency
sympathy here is a bit weak. The author uses words such as clever and ingenious that are quite strong

(D) enthusiasm for its aims mingled with doubts about its practicality
Again, enthusiasm is not in line with the words used by the author

(E) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications
Admiration here for sure works better with the words used by the author

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a great day to be alive!

D

Saasingh

Current Student

Joined: 11 Apr 2020

Status:Working hard

Posts: 411

Own Kudos [?]: 237 [0]

Given Kudos: 821

Location: India

GPA: 3.93

WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

02 Jan 2021, 07:06

3/4 correct.

Total time : 07:27

Got Q3 wrong, though it was on my contender list between A and C. I rejected A cause I felt it was more like a leap of faith and that author didn't explicitly state this. However, A option does seemed to be implied by both.

I chose C as I misunderstood author's intention to say so. He clearly says "unfortunately".. Clearly author disagrees with this statement so C must be wrong.

B

Dusinho

Intern

Joined: 18 Oct 2020

Posts: 1

Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]

Given Kudos: 0

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

02 Jan 2021, 08:33

Hi regarding Q4.
According to answer choice E, the author has misgivings about some of its implications. Some indicates plural, but the author only mentions one implication.

Posted from my mobile device

D

Saasingh

Current Student

Joined: 11 Apr 2020

Status:Working hard

Posts: 411

Own Kudos [?]: 237 [1]

Given Kudos: 821

Location: India

GPA: 3.93

WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

02 Jan 2021, 14:57

1

Kudos

Dusinho wrote:

Hi regarding Q4.
According to answer choice E, the author has misgivings about some of its implications. Some indicates plural, but the author only mentions one implication.

Posted from my mobile device

hey,

I think its fine because the answer choice specifically says "some of its implications" and not just implications.

You see, some could mean 1,2,3,4, anything really.

Also, I believe there is not just one implication. If you see objectively (and not literally/strictly), the author kind of builds up to lead us to the implications. what is an implication? Inferences or something like a take-away, right?

Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary."

From the above passage, is the take-away only that it is a redistributionist idea? We can infer a lot negative/misgivings.

Example:
Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be.

Like any CR question, any statement could lead to any number of inferences.

Regards,
Saakhi

B

ShubhamPatil

Intern

Joined: 09 Jun 2018

Posts: 12

Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]

Given Kudos: 51

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

27 Jun 2021, 10:40

Got all correct in 7min 45 sec. This includes 5min 45 sec of reading the passage.

Happy to help, if needed.

B

Alka10

Intern

Joined: 02 Aug 2022

Posts: 40

Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]

Given Kudos: 277

Location: India

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

25 Aug 2023, 01:12

Hi generis,

In response to your explanation for Q3.

I rejected option A: because it is not permissible as per the author and Rawl to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.

This option is opposite of what we are looking for. This is really confusing, Why is this option given as negation of what we are seeking?

Thanks
Alka

B

Alka10

Intern

Joined: 02 Aug 2022

Posts: 40

Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]

Given Kudos: 277

Location: India

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

25 Aug 2023, 01:37

Hi Folks,

Q1. options:

(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem

(D) debate the pros and cons of a complex theory

I was confused b/w B and D - . Can somebody please address below 2 points separately?

1. I rejected option B because it didn't include the flaw part mentioned by the author in last para of the passage. I come across main idea questions in which it sometimes include cons also but someitmes it doesn't , this really confuses me a lot - when to include the last take of the author and when not to include.

2. I chose option D - I was skeptical of debate word in this option but seemed a better option. But someone said on the club that it is not a debate - Can somebody help why is it not a debate - author is clearly mentioning rawl's take and putting his views as in ingenious , cleverly etc.

Thanks
Alka

L

arvind910619

Director

Joined: 20 Dec 2015

Status:Learning

Posts: 876

Own Kudos [?]: 566 [0]

Given Kudos: 755

Location: India

Concentration: Operations, Marketing

GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36

GRE 1: Q157 V157

GPA: 3.4

WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)

Send PM

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

08 Sep 2023, 04:51

Question 3 is really tough.
LSAT CR is ok but I really have some problem in LSAT CR

Posted from my mobile device

gmatclubot

Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp [#permalink]

08 Sep 2023, 04:51

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp