sriamlan
I don't understand the logic behind this question.Can some expert please explain.
Consider a woman asleep at a park with her purse wide open so that anyone could easily walk by and steal her money. Charles sees the open purse and, being a glutton, is tempted to steal the money. Charles starts creeping up to the purse, but, even though he is drooling at the possibility of using that money to buy himself burritos, he reluctantly decides stealing the money would be wrong and walks away.
Mike walks by and has no desire to steal the money. In fact, the thought doesn't even cross his angelic mind.
The conclusion of the passage is: "It would be a mistake to say that just because someone is not inclined to do otherwise, she or he does not deserve to be praised for doing what is right." Using our example, that means that it would be a mistake to say that Mike doesn't deserve to be praised for not stealing the money, even though he had no desire to steal the money.
"Although we do consider people especially virtuous if they successfully resist a desire to do what is wrong, they are certainly no less virtuous if they have succeeded in extinguishing all such desires." Using our example, although Charles can be considered especially virtuous for resisting the desire to steal, Mike, having extinguished the desire to steal, is no less virtuous than Charles.
See if that helps!