GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 08 Jul 2020, 03:53

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
User avatar
S
Status: Preparing
Joined: 14 Feb 2016
Posts: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: ISB '20
To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 26 Sep 2019, 00:19
1
6
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 240 sessions

66% (03:01) correct 34% (03:25) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 277 sessions

77% (00:38) correct 23% (00:51) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 275 sessions

25% (01:44) correct 75% (01:31) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 272 sessions

53% (01:07) correct 47% (01:03) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Passage # 84, Date : 14-MAR-2019
This post is a part of New Project RC Butler 2019. Click here for Details


To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of people's preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible-what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?-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. 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."

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. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.

But what is a fair procedure? 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. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.

Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement.

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

(A) show why a once-dominant theory was abandoned
(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem
(C) sketch the historical development of a celebrated theory
(D) debate the pros and cons of a complex theory
(E) argue for the truth of a controversial theory.



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

(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?

(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.



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

(A) scholarly neutrality with respect both to its objectives and its development
(B) disdain for its pretensions camouflaged by declarations of respect for its author
(C) sympathy with its recommendations tempered with skepticism about its cogency
(D) enthusiasm for its aims mingled with doubts about its practicality
(E) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications




  • Source: LSAT Official PrepTest 80 (Dec-2016)
  • Difficulty Level: 700

Originally posted by akanshaxo on 17 Feb 2019, 05:55.
Last edited by SajjadAhmad on 26 Sep 2019, 00:19, edited 7 times in total.
Updated - Complete topic (678).
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Aug 2017
Posts: 116
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Mar 2019, 01:45
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Sep 2017
Posts: 5
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2019, 20:51
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Dec 2018
Posts: 6
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2019, 13:04
2
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Dec 2018
Posts: 6
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2019, 13:07
3
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Sep 2017
Posts: 5
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2019, 23:34
1
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jan 2019
Posts: 62
Concentration: International Business, Finance
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2019, 02:18
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
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2445
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Apr 2019, 23:13
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
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3943
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2019, 09:38
1
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

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.
generis , other experts

Skywalker18 , Question 3 is hard because the author sneaks in a somewhat inconsistent
disapproval of Rawls' theory near the end of the passage.
By that time, we are probably inclined to believe that the author supports Rawls.

3) "With which ... statement would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?"

Answer (C) does not work. The author does not like one consequence of Rawls's theory: redistribution required by certain cases.

• According to Rawls, "everyone should get a least a minimum amount of primary goods."
About this very sentence, the author comments,
Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea..."

(I can see from your notes that you caught the sentence. I would bet that your mind, at that point
primed to believe that the author would support Rawls, did not process the "unfortunately.")

• The author does not agree with redistribution of goods—even of water
and even if, say, Ananya will die without it and Saanvi has more than enough water.

Redistribution means that if Ananya does not have any water; and if Saanvi has more than enough water;
then water must be redistributed from Saanvi to Ananya. Ananya will die without water.

Taking some water from Saanyi and giving it to Ananya is, according to the author,
"Unfortunately, ... an inherently redistributionist idea, [whose application is] at the expense of others if necessary."
-- Well, yes. So that Ananya can live, some water that Saanyi does not need is given to Ananya.
-- The water is redistributed.
For this author, taking water from Saanyi is unfortunate and at Saanyi's expense.
"At someone's expense" suggests disadvantaging or victimizing someone, namely, Saanyi.
(Ananya's expense does not matter. Saanyi owned the water first.)

The author does not agree that "if an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others."

Answer (C) does not work.
Now what to do?

• One tactic is to go back and look at text we might instinctively avoid or overlook.
One hint in (A) comes from the word "majority."
Utilitarians believe in the greatest good for the greatest number (the majority in that situation).

The mob example. Utilitarians would have to endorse
the execution of an innocent person to appease a mob.

Rawls rejects this position. The author likewise calls endorsing the execution "incredible"—impossible to believe.
In this situation, the innocent person should not be executed.

Answer A is our best bet:
(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.

The innocent person should not be executed.
Both Rawls and the author reject the utilitarian argument in favor of execution. Preferences?
The innocent person's preference is to live—to avoid execution.
The mob's preference is to execute the innocent person.

In this situation, Rawls and the author would both agree that the mob's preferences
should not be fulfilled
and are not as important as the preferences of one innocent person.
That agreement supports answer (A).

I hope that analysis helps.
_________________
Visit SC Butler, here! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

BLACK LIVES MATTER.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10653
Location: Pune, India
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2019, 00:41
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)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 02 Jan 2020
Posts: 244
Premium Member
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2020, 07:59
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
Tutor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 884
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2020, 13:02
2
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 397
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2020, 23:47
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!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp   [#permalink] 31 Mar 2020, 23:47

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne