Q24

[camillebachrach]

Can you please explain why the answer is B and not A? I'm a little confused as to how either one really exhibits lines 37-44 but could rule out C,D, and E. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Analogy/Application

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 37-44 should give us all the ammunition we need.

Any prephrase?
If these two sentences are hard to understand, it could be helpful to remind yourself of the purpose of this 3rd paragraph before reading. The author is arguing "philosophical anarchists are NOT people who can do as they please, with no obligation to laws or scruples.

In these two lines, the author is saying that philosophical anarchists DO still have an obligation (duty) to refrain from harming others. In fact, they might be MORE scrupulous than normal law abiding people. Because even if there were no laws, P.A.'s would STILL be following typical laws, by refraining from such immoral stuff as murder, assault, theft, and fraud.

So, in short, we're looking for someone who sounds pretty virtuous (doesn't do wrong to people), regardless of whether there are any laws/rules forcing them to be good.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:

A) Sounds selfish. This guy ratted out his friends in order to save himself.

B) This sounds noble. She stopped dumping chemicals once she knew they were harming people. She refrained from harming someone.

C) Sounds weak and timid. Nothing noble here.

D) Sounds selfishly motivated again.

E) There's nothing harmFUL here, as far as we can see. But this doesn't reinforce anything from lines 37-44. This is close to describing something spoken about at the END of the third paragraph.

Takeaway/Pattern: (B) is correct because it reinforces "duties not to harm others in their lives, liberty, health, or goods." In lines 39-40. It may have surprised us if we were expecting an example more like lines 40-44, in which someone does something moral, even though there ISN'T a law forcing him to. But none of the answers sounded like that. And the other four didn't involve anything positive/moral sounding.

#officialexplanation

[camillebachrach]

great, that was really really helpful---thank you!!

[renata.gomez]

Under timed conditions I initially chose E because I made the faulty assumption that if there were no other vehicles, then no one else could be hurt. This would keep in line with the lines given in the question stem because there would be no harm to others. However, when I reviewed, I realized that if someone else was in the car with the driver, and the driver got in an accident some how, then it is possible for someone else to be harmed. The answer choice never specifies that the driver is alone in the car.