Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
aurobindomahanty
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 66
30 Apr 2017, 09:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
67% (02:35) correct
33%
(02:42)
wrong
based on 639
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Ethicist: Many environmentalists hold that the natural environment is morally valuable for its own sake,regardless of any benefits it provides us.However,even if nature has no moral value,nature can be regarded as worth preserving simply on the grounds that people find it beautiful.Moreover,because it is philosophically disputable whether nature is morally valuable but undeniable that it is beautiful,an argument for preserving nature that emphasizes nature’s beauty will be less vulnerable to logical objections than one that emphasizes its moral value. The ethicist’s reasoning most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?
(A) An argument in favor of preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it avoids the issue of what makes nature worth preserving.
(B) If an argument for preserving nature emphasizes a specific characteristic of nature and is vulnerable to logical objections,then that characteristic does not provide a sufficient reason for preserving nature.
(C) If it is philosophically disputable whether nature has a certain characteristic,then nature would be more clearly worth preserving if it did not have that characteristic.
(D) Anything that has moral value is worth preserving regardless of whether people consider it to be beautiful.
(E) An argument for preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a basis for preserving nature and that philosophically indisputably belongs to nature.
(A) An argument in favor of preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it avoids the issue of what makes nature worth preserving.
(B) If an argument for preserving nature emphasizes a specific characteristic of nature and is vulnerable to logical objections,then that characteristic does not provide a sufficient reason for preserving nature.
(C) If it is philosophically disputable whether nature has a certain characteristic,then nature would be more clearly worth preserving if it did not have that characteristic.
(D) Anything that has moral value is worth preserving regardless of whether people consider it to be beautiful.
(E) An argument for preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a basis for preserving nature and that philosophically indisputably belongs to nature.
30 Apr 2017, 10:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
In short, the argument is saying whether it adds moral value or not, it is beautiful hence should be preserved. Then the argument uses certain points to prove its beauty and hence why is should be preserved. That means one property is sufficient to preserve irrespective of other properties.
Option E clearly says so.
(A) An argument in favor of preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it avoids the issue of what makes nature worth preserving. : No, this avoid thing is not mentioned anywhere.
(B) If an argument for preserving nature emphasizes a specific characteristic of nature and is vulnerable to logical objections,then that characteristic does not provide a sufficient reason for preserving nature. This is opposite.
(C) If it is philosophically disputable whether nature has a certain characteristic,then nature would be more clearly worth preserving if it did not have that characteristic. : We are not sure about this. We are given the it is philosophically acceptable. What would happen it is disputable is OFS.
(D) Anything that has moral value is worth preserving regardless of whether people consider it to be beautiful. : Too extreme to select
(E) An argument for preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a basis for preserving nature and that philosophically indisputably belongs to nature. Correct, as per reasoning mentioned above.
Option E clearly says so.
(A) An argument in favor of preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it avoids the issue of what makes nature worth preserving. : No, this avoid thing is not mentioned anywhere.
(B) If an argument for preserving nature emphasizes a specific characteristic of nature and is vulnerable to logical objections,then that characteristic does not provide a sufficient reason for preserving nature. This is opposite.
(C) If it is philosophically disputable whether nature has a certain characteristic,then nature would be more clearly worth preserving if it did not have that characteristic. : We are not sure about this. We are given the it is philosophically acceptable. What would happen it is disputable is OFS.
(D) Anything that has moral value is worth preserving regardless of whether people consider it to be beautiful. : Too extreme to select
(E) An argument for preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a basis for preserving nature and that philosophically indisputably belongs to nature. Correct, as per reasoning mentioned above.
