#16 - Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer A, JDDS0220, is that there is an alternative. Nations don't need something other than those false beliefs, because it could be sufficient for their citizens to only have those false beliefs! Having those false beliefs (the ones that are "literally false," that nations have moral rights and responsibilities) might be all a nation needs in order to survive.

And as to the "and" aspect, think of it this way: if I go to the movies, I must have popcorn and soda. Isn't it true, then, that if I go to the movies I must have popcorn? That statement isn't false just because I didn't mention soda! So an answer that is only about the rights, or only about the responsibilities, could be a valid Must Be True answer. But probably not a valid Main Point answer, since the author is clearly arguing about both things.

Let us know if that doesn't help out, and we'll try it another way!

p.s. Man, I miss going to the movies!

[JDDS0220]

Thank you for answering Adam !

I still have some question about AC A though..

The argument says that "But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights (moral) and responsibilities (moral) to it ..."

I think this one can be interpreted as:
Nation survives --> citizens attribute "moral rights AND responsibilities" to it

and AC A says "a nation cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifice"

I think this one can be interpreted as:
Nation survives --> False belief (Moral right) + "something else"

I understand B is a clearly correct AC
However, for me, AC A also looks good. Since the argument says that they need to have moral rights AND moral responsibilities in order for a nation to survive, having something other than moral rights is a necessary for a nation to survive.

Again, I really appreciate your help ! Thank you !!

p.s. I really miss going to the movies as well

[Jeremy Press]

Hi jdds,

Interesting question you're asking! It's a "Main Point, Fill in the Blank" question, which means we should treat the answer the same way we treat a Must Be True answer. So we want the answer that is most supported by the given premises. The way you've read answer choice A makes answer choice B an even more supportable answer (because you're reading answer choice A to require a false belief). In other words, if you read answer choice A the way you have, answer choice B has to be a correct answer; and, in fact, it's an even better answer than answer choice A because it's more softly worded (hence easier to prove from the premises).

When this happens, what you should consider is whether there's another plausible reading of the stimulus that should be considered. Look back at this sentence in the stimulus: "no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it." There's a plausible reading of the "rights and responsibilities" language I underlined under which "rights and responsibilities" is a collective notion (i.e. when I refer to one, I'm including the other, and vice versa). Under that reading of the stimulus, then, answer choice A is a wrong answer because the two things are not being treated separately and there's not necessarily anything beyond the false belief that a nation has moral rights (and, implied, responsibilities) needed for a nation to survive.

I know this isn't entirely satisfying, but it's a position we're put in occasionally. Deal with it by asking which answer is obviously, unambiguously provable. That's answer choice B.

I hope this helps!