Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n

Question

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation __________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms

Source: LSAT

VeritasPrepBrandon · Accepted Answer

Boiled down, this stimulus states that nations have no moral obligations, but that nations cannot survive without its citizens attributing such obligations to it (aka the citizens having false beliefs). This leads nicely into answer choice B, which states that citizens must have FALSE beliefs in order for the nation to survive.

Answer choices C-E are all out of scope here. Answer choice A comes close, but because the argument leaves no room for anything other than these false beliefs to allow the nations to survive (the argument states "...nothing else could prompt citizens...," we must outrule A and pick answer choice B.

I hope this helps!!!

rango · Answer

It seems to me that only A, B are talking about the survival of nation which is the scope of passage/ argument. But one sec on the C also fits properly. Now put A first;- Survival depends on Beliefs Other than the False belief which is stated, hence wrong. C- talks about praise which is OK but ask talks about the blame, which is not the scope of argument. Now B - which talks about many of citizens - some literally false beliefs, need to figure out what the author is, yes a philosopher- literary person, correct.

Hope it helps

ziyavutdinov · Answer

Can someone explain the following in simple words: "But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands"

aniketm.87@gmail.com · Answer

Can someone pls explain y E is wrong? or out of scope?

ynk · Answer

E is wrong as it never relates to the argument.

Argument talks about nation,people & sacrifices but option E talks about its use i.e literal and metaphorical.
To complete the argument,one must use a premise from the argument.

BillyZ · Answer

Remember that the word “ some ” just means “ one or more .” So all we need is one example of a false belief that needs to be held by citizens in order for nations to survive. And we have it… if citizens don’t believe the falsehood that their nations have moral rights, then nations will fail to survive. This is logical, conservatively stated completion of the argument.

chesstitans · Answer

this is a conclusion question, not an inference. The first sentence of the passage does not do any help to the conclusion. The key reason is the second sentence.

This question is unlikely to appear in gmat.

ClassSkippa · Answer

This question is a bit ridiculous...1200-level question if you ask me:

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation __________.

The first sentence tells us a KEY PREMISE that we need to solve this problem: 
Nations are NOT humans; Nations don't have rights and responsibilities. Thus ONLY humans have rights and responsibilities. (You can argue here that animals/aliens could potentially have rights and responsibilities but the over-usage of "literally" tells us that the author is definitely assuming only humans can have them)

Then the second sentence says citizens attribute right and responsibilities, combining the logic from above, means that citizens believe nations are human. This is a false belief because of the premise aforementioned.

hiranmay · Answer

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation __________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?
 
Analysis:

Literally:
- Nation not person
- no thoughts or feelings
- perform no actions
- no moral rights or responsibilities

Nation: moral rights or responsibilities --> to survive, but literally nation has no moral rights or responsibilities.
Author is trying to say:  To survive, nation needs to be attributed moral rights or responsibilities, but literally nation has no moral rights or responsibilities .

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices --> "its citizens to make sacrifices" is just an example & is given in the premise. B is better, more conclusive

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false -->  correct : align w/ analysis

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame --> this -ve side, author is trying to say +ve

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf --> too extreme, author is not trying to say this

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms

komalpatna · Answer

"citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it"

Derive the sentance above wrong, it is clearly stating that citizans are beleving nation has moral attribute which is wrong as shown in starting of the passage. So clearly option B wins

Hea234ven · Answer

In B, I dont get the words- some beliefs that are literally false..what beliefs.. and why false

IN2MBB2PE · Answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-GVTDlSNE0

straykid · Answer

Hey, GMAT students -- you don't need to be able to do problems like this one. I teach both exams and this was so obviously an LSAT question I knew even before I read the little tag at the bottom of the question. This kind of question, with this really difficult phrasing, and with its really subtle and weird use of logic, simply wouldn't show up on the GMAT. Time is the only non-renewable resource -- don't waste time on this kind of question. I mean, why not study some calculus and logarithms while you're at it? They also won't show up on the test. Your health, sanity, and time are important. Don't study from LSAT content unless you're working with a teacher who can help you pick out questions that actually could show up on the GMAT.

wadhwakaran · Answer

Argument says: No nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands  meaning thereby that if citizens do not attribute these false moral rights or responsibilities, the nation cannot survive. Nothing else other than these false moral rights or responsibilities will prompt citizens to make sacrifices.
 
 FB----> Nation Survives

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices  Option says something other than FB which the argument completely denies. Therefore, incorrect

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false  In other words, If citizens do not have false beliefs, the nation cannot survive. FB--->NS. Therefore, Correct

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame  Irrelevant

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf  Out of scope

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms  Out of scope

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. - Background information.

Thus, they have no moral rights or responsibilities. - Intermediate conclusion.

But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. - "but" introduces a contrast. This means that the false belief that nations have such moral rights or responsibilities is the minimum condition for a nation's survival.

Obviously, then, a nation __________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices - it means "cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief motivates its citizens." If nothing other than the false belief motivates its citizens, the nation cannot continue to exist." This Means " the country continues to exist, implying there is something other than the false belief to motivate," an idea that contradicts the argument. As per the argument, "the false belief is the minimum condition for the nation to exist."

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false - means "can survive implies many of citizens have a false belief." - as per the argument. Ok.

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame - out of scope.

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf - out of scope.

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms - out of scope.

Adit_ · Answer

Bunuel   KarishmaB  Kindly help me out. I am kind of stumped lol I did not understand the solution at all.

guddo · Answer

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation __________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?

The philosopher says nations are not literally persons, so they do not literally act or have feelings, and therefore they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But a nation cannot survive unless many citizens still attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, because that belief motivates sacrifices.

(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices

This contradicts the setup. The philosopher says nothing else could prompt the sacrifices, so it is not “something other than” that belief.

(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false

This follows directly. If nations have no moral rights or responsibilities, then attributing them is  literally false , and the passage says the nation needs many citizens to hold that attribution to survive.  This matches the argument’s logic.

(C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame

This restates the first part, but it ignores the survival claim and does not complete the “Obviously, then” inference.

(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf

That is a value judgment the argument never establishes.

(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms

The argument never recommends how we should think about nations, only what is required for survival.

Answer: (B)

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have n

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards