We have a moral obligation not to destroy books, even if they belong

I have seen a couple of sites showing the answer to the above question as D

(D) We are morally obligated not to destroy anything that will most likely enrich, either intellectually or emotionally, our posterity..

IMO This is the wrong answer , as it talks about either intellectual or emotional whereas the Premise talk about intellectual and emotional both .

The correct answer should be B.

We have a moral obligation not to destroy books, even if they belong to us. The reason is quite simple: If preserved, books will almost certainly contribute to the intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generations.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argument?


(A) It is morally incumbent upon us to devote effort to performing actions that have at least some chance of improving other people’s lives.
--> Correct. other people = future generations.

(B) We are morally obligated to preserve anything that past generations had preserved for our intellectual and emotional enrichment.
--> no mention of a future generation

(C) The moral commitments we have to future generations supersede the moral commitments we have to the present generation.
sacrifice of the current generation over a future generation is not mentioned.

(D) We are morally obligated not to destroy anything that will most likely enrich, either intellectually or emotionally, our posterity.
--> this is said in the statement and is not an underlined principle.

(E) Being morally obligated not to destroy something requires that we be reasonably assured that that thing will lead to the betterment of someone we know.
--> out of scope
_________________________________________________________

The answer is A.

We have a moral obligation not to destroy books, even if they belong to us. The reason is quite simple: If preserved, books will almost certainly contribute to the intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generations.

Stimulus: we have a moral obligation not to destroy books because if books are preserved it will almost definitely contribute to the intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generation.


IMO D

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argument?


(A) It is morally incumbent upon us to devote effort to performing actions that have at least some chance of improving other people’s lives.

(B) We are morally obligated to preserve anything that past generations had preserved for our intellectual and emotional enrichment.

(C) The moral commitments we have to future generations supersede the moral commitments we have to the present generation.

(D) We are morally obligated not to destroy anything that will most likely enrich, either intellectually or emotionally, our posterity.

(E) Being morally obligated not to destroy something requires that we be reasonably assured that that thing will lead to the betterment of someone we know.

OA mentions our prosperity whereas question stem clearly says preserving books will certainly improve prosperity for future generation.
I think passage means that we can destroy something if we are certain it'll not contribute to future generations, regardless of whether it is prosperous for us.

I think you got confused between prosperity and posterity

Happened to me as well when I was quickly reading through the options. Apparently it is a phenomenon experienced by everyone once in a while.

A debrief on it as well, if interested.

Hope I helped.

Yeah, it explains a lot and certainly the clarifies the mentioned OA to me thanks!

­if someone doesnt know the meaning of "posterity". they will definitely get it wrong.

Premise:
If preserved, books will almost certainly contribute to the intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generations.

Conclusion:
We have a moral obligation not to destroy books, even if they belong to us.

What is the underlying principle for concluding what the author did?
We have a moral obligation to not destroy that which will enrich our future generations (posterity means future generations). So if not destroying books will enrich them, we must not destroy books.

Hence (D) fits very well
(D) We are morally obligated not to destroy anything that will most likely enrich, either intellectually or emotionally, our posterity.

We are given "either intellectually or emotionally" in option (D) so as long as at least one of these is present, the principle is applicable.


Why is (A) incorrect?

(A) It is morally incumbent upon us to devote effort to performing actions that have at least some chance of improving other people’s lives.

This talks about devoting effort to perform actions. Our discussion does not involve any 'devoting effort'. Had it been something like

Poems contribute to the intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generations. Hence each one of us should invest time and effort in creating one original poem in our lives. then it would make sense to have (A) as the principle. Also, "other people" is a little too generic. The point is about posterity.

As given, (D) fits better.

Answer (D)