Q5

[laurenvarg]

This question asks us to look for the author's stance toward Rawls's theory.

Predicted answer: The author uses some strong language in a few places to talk about Rawls's theory. In line 19 he says "Rawls offers an ingenious answer to the question of "How can we know what justice requires?" In Line 26 "Rawls again has a clever approach." However, the author does question some outcomes that would come from this theory, namely the redistributionist idea inherent in it. (If someone lacks a good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary).

So probably something along the lines of "Clever, ingenious, admiration....with some hang ups on its outcomes"

Correct answer:

(E) This is on the money, and reflects the prediction we made. The author admires its ingenuity (actually uses that word in line 19) but does have misgivings about some implications (namely the inherent redistributionist idea).

------

A. "Neutrality" is off here. The author certainly uses some strong language praising the ingenuity of Rawls. there's no mention of its development (has it developed)? We're speaking in theory here. We can eliminate this answer.

B. Disdain for the pretensions? This is way too strong and the only question the author raises is about its implications not its pretenses. Eliminate.

C. Sympathy doesn't seem right. While the author seems to believe alternatives to utilitarianism need to be discussed, the author is beyond sympathetic to the attempt. Rather, the author praises it. Eliminate.

D. This answer is very tempting. There is definitely enthusiasm, and some doubts about how it will play out in practice. But the author is more enthusiastic about the approach and way of explaining rather than the aims.

[ohthatpatrick]

Crushin' it, L.V.

I think (D) vs. (E) is a subtle down to 2.

They both give us that "overall positive, with a smidge of negative".

This down to 2 has a few head-to-head battles.

Enthusiasm vs. admiration: probably a draw

"for its aims" vs. "for its ingenuity": this round goes to (E), since one of our two big attitude sentences is "Rawls offers an ingenious answer"

"doubts about practicality" vs. "misgivings about implications": this also goes to (E), since the author doesn't say anything to effect that redistribution of wealth is impractical. She only says "unfortunately" the theory could justify that.

'Implications' is talking about extrapolating the internal logic of a claim or argument.

We have "inherently, since, if, must be" all showing us logical markers for the ideas in the last two sentences.