Question #165

Explanation for eliminating E, please

Started by Mazen · started 2021-05-03 22:15 · last activity 2022-09-20 01:23 · 2 replies

Are there more than two ways - literal and metaphorical - to interpret things? If literally speaking it is false to think of a nation as having moral rights and responsibilities, then wouldn't the metaphorical way of interpreting a nation in those terms be the only alternative left? And in so far as the "should" versus the "is" are concerned, i.e. prescriptive versus descriptive, the line of differentiation between a necessary/required condition which is a "must" and a "should" statement is infinitesimal. In the context of the stimulus, for a nation to survive, its people are required to attribute to it falsehoods. Is that not equivalent to stating for a nation to survive, its people "should" attribute to it falsehoods? PLEASE, help especially with this idea of distinguishing between "must" and "should"? Thank you

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2022-09-19 01:30

    Hi Mazen, As to the metaphorical v literal question, I have no idea (at least in the context of this question). When an answer choice starts pulling out terms that only loosely apply to the passage, and I do not see an obvious or clear way to understand them in that context, I would treat that as a red flag. That said, the word should is an even bigger red flag here. The passage does not enable us to say anything prescriptive-it is entirely descriptive. This is the main reason that I would be comfortable eliminating E.

  2. Mazen · 2022-09-20 01:23

    Thank you Emil

Sign in to reply.