Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they per...
Mazenon May 3, 2021
Explanation for eliminating E, please
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
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
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.