Q6

[RiaK633]

I'm hoping for clarification on why answer C is correct and why answer B is wrong. I saw answer B as, if it is impossible for people to be ignorant of their stations in life, abilities, and taste, then it is impossible for them to be in the "original position". If it is impossible to be in the original position, and lines 49-51 are based on being in that position, then it is not the case that they will agree that everyone should get at least a min of goods.

In answer C, can't anyone in the "original position" still feel that everyone should get these goods even if some people would be willing to risk a complete loss of one good for another? Just because some people feel that way does not mean that anyone in the "original position" feels that way or knows of those that do feel that way. If they did feel that way or were aware of others that did, I see how it would weaken because then they are aware of some people that aren't getting any amount of primary good rather than some min

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen/Weaken

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 49-51

Any prephrase?
Since it says to weaken the 'claim', not 'argument', we should only need to consider lines 49-51. It is a conditional claim ("Any"), and to weaken a conditional claim, you want to make it seem like something might BE the left side, but NOT BE the right side.

Here, that means we would want someone who IS in the original position but DOESN'T think that everyone should be guaranteed a minimum of primary goods.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:

(A) Own preferences vs. strangers' preferences doesn't seem germane to this claim.

(B) This basically says that the trigger would never happen. No one can ever be in the original position. That's not a typical way to weaken a conditional claim, but I guess it makes the claim seem useless if it can never be triggered.

(C) YES! This goes against the right side. These people are NOT saying "let's come up with a system in which we're all guaranteed at least a minimum of all these primary goods". They're saying "nah, gimme a system where I might have ZERO of some primary goods".

(D) A key distinction here is that this is talking about whether people would be SATISFIED with a minium. The claim we're trying to weaken is about whether people would say SOCIETY SHOULD GRANT PEOPLE at least a minimum. Those don't conflict. I can say "I think society should provide everyone with at least 100sq ft. of shelter", and still believe that "I would be unsatisfied with only 100sq ft of shelter". The first idea is about society having some safety net. The second idea is about whether an individual would then be motivated to pursue improving his/her standard of living.

(E) This claim has nothing to do with available resources.

Takeaway/Pattern: Wow, this was annoying.

It helped me to have strong conviction that the way you weaken "A --> B"
is to deliver the possibility of "A but ~B".

(B) is a weird trap answer because it just gives us ~A. However, it's not like, in context, Rawls is assuming "it's possible in practice" to be in the original position. It is, after all, a "thought experiment".

Meanwhile, (C) is resisting Rawls ACTUAL assumptions about human nature. Rawls thinks that everyone wants primary goods so we'd inherently pick a "fair system" in which everyone gets a minimum. (C) calls that into question by saying that some people are comfortable with less safety net in exchange for more upward mobility.

#officialexplanation

[ZaftigG65]

Since it says to weaken the 'claim', not 'argument', we should only need to consider lines 49-51. It is a conditional claim ("Any"), and to weaken a conditional claim, you want to make it seem like something might BE the left side, but NOT BE the right side.

I fail to see how this isn't an argument. Rawl claims everyone WANTS certain goods and then concludes that everyone will agree that everyone SHOULD GET A MINIMUM amount of these goods. I could WANT two different things but in reality I might sacrifice one for the other. Eg. I want money and a mansion. That's a pretty small assumption but an assumption nonetheless. Choice C is directly challenging this assumption.

[Yu440]

Hi, I was wavering between C and E. Unfortunately I ultimately chose E. I understand why C is correct. I thought E worked because if people tend to underestimate their own needs, then they might think some primary goods aren't necessary. And if they also tend to overestimate the resources available for distribution then they might believe they will be able to gain those resources later on in life, hence there is no need to have some of the resources (I interpreted this as equal to primary goods) distributed to them in the original position. Where did I go wrong in my thinking?

[EricaL584]

C can call line49-51 into question because it says "a complete loss" of one primary good, while line 49-51 says at least give me the minimum amount. I think a confusing point here is whether "minimum amount" refers to each of the necessary primary good or minimum number of primary goods.