RC Question 22 Explanation
DISCUSSION: Passage A was written to describe how we can make a theory of justice for property and what it might look like.
Passage B discusses a specific law that aims to prevent injustice in Native American land sales. Then passage B discusses native american land claims in the context of the principle of rectification.
In practice, you should eliminate answers if one of the passage descriptions is wrong.
___________
- Passage B doesn’t criticize solutions.
- CORRECT. This works. Passage A is an overview of how to make a just law for property. Passage B discusses two different aspects of justice in Native American land ownership issues.
- Passage A doesn’t give any details. It’s an abstract discussion of moral principles. You couldn’t use passage A to make detailed laws.
- Passage B doesn’t criticize any moral theory.
- Passage B doesn’t provide any counterexamples to a moral theory.
What are the two aspects in passage B? I put A as the answer because I thought the author of B calling the proposed solution possibly impractical was a criticism, but I may be reading it wrong?
The two aspects of justice in Passage B are in each of the two paragraphs. The first being that the Act protects Native Americans from fraudulent transfers. The second is the broader justification that Native Americans were the original owners of the land and so it should be returned to them. Though, imo, the two aspects aren’t really that important for why B is correct.
The fact that returning land is impractical isn’t a criticism of returning land. It’s just a qualification and recognition that it won’t always be completely possible. But the author of passage B still believes we should return it wherever it’s feasible. So they’re recognizing that it’s not always practical, but they’re saying if feasible (even if impractical), it should be returned. So there’s no critiquing a proposed solution.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
How do you distinguish something as having details or not? For passage A I thought that it had details of the two different principles, but it seems like I am confusing what “details” are exactly.
Good question! So, the first point is about acquiring something in accordance with justice in acquisition. But….what is justice in acquisition? The author doesn’t tell us what the conditions are that let you say “yes I acquired property in accordance with this principle”.
The passage gives a general outline but it wouldn’t let us judge which situations do and don’t match. That’s what details mean: you’d have to be able to render actual judgements and not merely follow the argument generally.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.