RC Question 3 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The first two lines make clear that utilitarianism is only mentioned to explain Rawls. Explaining Rawls’ theory is the main purpose of the passage.
___________
- The author actually didn’t say that utilitarianism was abandoned. They just say Rawls rejects it. Line 17 says “If we abandon utilitarianism”, implying it hasn’t necessarily been abandoned.
- CORRECT. I don’t love this answer, but it’s the best one. Lines 19 (“ingenious”) and line 26 (“clever”) show that Rawls’ theory is indeed novel, in that no one had taken such an approach before and cleverness was required. And, lines 17-51 are devoted to explaining how the theory works (with lines 1-16 as necessary background). So, overall this answer is a good description.
- I was very tempted by this, until I realized that we don’t really have the historical development of Rawls’ theory. When did Rawls first work on the theory? Did it have precursors, apart from its contrast with utilitarianism? How did the theory change over time?
These are all essential questions for understanding the historical development of something. The bit about utilitarianism is historical background of the general context, but we don’t have any information on the historical development of Rawls’ theory itself. - It’s true that Rawls’ theory is complex. But only one con is mentioned: lines 51-55 say that Rawls’ theory is redistributionist. And there’s not much debate; the author hasn’t said why redistribution is inherently a bad thing.
- Rawls’ theory is a thought experiment. It can’t really be “true” in any conventional sense. We’re never going to have a society which we create and then enter in a random fashion.
Also, lines 51-55 show that the author doesn’t entirely agree with Rawls.
Ingenius and/or clever do not mean new or novel. I have seen similar stretches with the vocabulary in LSAT. Assuming that an ingeniuos theory is a novel theory makes sens, but it is an assumption, not a MBT. The word takes the new meaning in this contexte. Answer “D” was about pros and cons of the complexe theory and the answer is wrong because there is only one con? Wow. Seriously a stretch here. I wonder if something else is the issue. It seems too ” tiré par les cheveux”… I am not convinced at all and if I have to repeat this MP in 8 months or so, I will still pick the wrong answer. Please let me know if something else could help here. Thanks!!
>Ingenius and/or clever do not mean new or novel.
Not in the absolute. But in the context we can infer it is novel. Rawls was reacting against utilitarianism, the dominant theory at the time. In describing Rawls’ response as ingenious and clever, the author strongly suggests Rawls had a new approach. Otherwise, in what way would Rawls’ be clever? The author also clearly says the approach is Rawls’ own.
Rawls’ method is so simple people can and do repeat it a a just-so story. So the cleverness is at least partly in the novelty.
It isn’t a MBT question. A primary purpose is a broad term and I think that grants it at least a bit of license.
D isn’t only wrong because it mentions just one thing. The author also doesn’t really debate their con. They just assert as fact that redistribution is bad. So I think the answer falls down on the debate front too.
I definitely don’t love this question though. You’re quite right to find it frustrating.
Ah! This is very clear. Thanks. The more something is discussed in the passage, the more chances it’s part of the primary purpose. Thanks! I have mistaken primary purpose with MBT. :)
I understand why the first part of B is correct, but I did not choose it when I took the test because I did not see clear language that indicated there was a “problem” being addressed by Rawls’ theory. What part of the passage do you think indicates a “problem”? Maybe first sentence of P2? “…how can we know what justice requires?”
Good question! I would say it’s in the first two paragraphs. For example, utilitarianism says that it can make sense to murder an innocent to appease a mob. This should be intuitively wrong – i.e. a problem. The passage emphasizes this by saying “incredibly”. So Rawls complains about utilitarianism and rejects it.
The passage then asks: “How can we know what justice requires?”. That’s the problem to be solved, in particular in the sense of a math problem. A problem isn’t necessarily a strict negative, but can also be a puzzle or something requiring a solution.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.