Walter: For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an in

Question

Walter: For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an injustice perpetrated against one of society’s disadvantaged is not only just morally wrong but also shortsighted: a system that inflicts an injustice on a disadvantaged person today can equally well inflict that same injustice on a well-to-do person tomorrow.
Larissa: In our society, the wealthy as well as the well-educated can protect themselves against all sorts of injustices suffered by the less well-off. Allowing such injustices to persist is bad policy not because it places everyone at equal risk of injustice but because it is a potent source of social unrest.

Larissa responds to Walter by doing which one of the following?

(A) giving reason to doubt the truth of Walter’s conclusion
(B) drawing implausible consequences from Walter’s assumptions
(C) questioning Walter’s authority to address matters of social policy
(D) providing an alternative reason for accepting the truth of Walter’s conclusion
(E) charging Walter with stopping short of recognizing the full implications of his position

Mankodim · Answer

(A) giving reason to doubt the truth of Walter’s conclusion -  Larissa does not doubt Walter's conclusion

(B) drawing implausible consequences from Walter’s assumptions -  Larissa is technically not challenging Walter's stance. She agrees with it. So option B is out

(C) questioning Walter’s authority to address matters of social policy -  same as B

(D) providing an alternative reason for accepting the truth of Walter’s conclusion -  This holds true, considering the tone of the sentence

(E) charging Walter with stopping short of recognizing the full implications of his position -  I really got confused between D & E. Ended up choosing D but I am not 100% sure why E should be eliminated as an answer choice

Puyol · Answer

Mankodim

I think E) is wrong because she does not "charge" Walter and also her reply does not say anything about his position.

edlc313 · Answer

Walter:
1. For rich people to allow injustice to poor people is wrong
2. Poor people are equally subject to the same injustices

Larissa:
1. Rich people can protect themselves
2. Allowing such injustices to persist is bad policy  not because  it places everyone at equal risk  (Walter's argument)  of injustice  but because  it is a  potent source of social unrest (Larissa's reasoning for the  same  conclusion).

Using the verbal clues of 'not because' and 'but because,' we can easily see that while they agree, Larissa has her own reasoning as to why. Answer D

auradediligodo · Answer

Walter: For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an injustice perpetrated against one of society’s disadvantaged is not only just morally wrong but also shortsighted: a system that inflicts an injustice on a disadvantaged person today can equally well inflict that same injustice on a well-to-do person tomorrow.
Larissa: In our society, the wealthy as well as the well-educated can protect themselves against all sorts of injustices suffered by the less well-off. Allowing such injustices to persist is bad policy not because it places everyone at equal risk of injustice but because it is a potent source of social unrest.

Larissa responds to Walter by doing which one of the following?

Pre-thinking:
 To recap:
Both Walter and Larissa share the same idea: tolerate an injustice to someone disadvantaged is wrong but they give two different reasons for why it is wrong.
As for Walter tolerating such an injustice would lead to more injustice to the wealthy people.
But Larissa discards this idea by stating that the wealthy and well educated won't suffer anyhow injustice and she suggests another opinion: social unrest

(A) giving reason to doubt the truth of Walter’s conclusion
 The conclusion drawn remains the same: tolerate this injustice is wrong and shortsighted. Hence incorrect

(B) drawing implausible consequences from Walter’s assumptions
 the consequence drawn seems plausible. No reason to doubt that. Hence incorrect

(C) questioning Walter’s authority to address matters of social policy
 No authority is questioned. Hence incorrect

(D) providing an alternative reason for accepting the truth of Walter’s conclusion
 In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

(E) charging Walter with stopping short of recognizing the full implications of his position
 No. Larissa suggests that the consequence he drew is wrong and so she suggests another. Hence incorrect

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Walter: For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an in

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

Walter: For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an in

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