#15 - Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view that

[bebeg3168]

Hello,

I think I have the right answer, it is my reasoning that I want to be sure of.

The author cites that "A few theorists" believe society can flourish during condition of anarchy. After that comma the author defines that as an absence of gov't.
So the theorists are saying this could be a good thing however the author states that the society needs peace and order, and concludes that "Any" theory that promotes anarchy (chaos) is bad.
There are two meanings of anarchy so, the author can't have his/her cake and eat it too. A describes this to a T

[Luke Haqq]

Hi begeb3168!

Yes, your reasoning sounds correct.

The author initially defines "anarchy" to mean "the absence of government." But in the final sentence, the author mentions "chaos, i.e., anarchy." The author uses it for one meaning at the beginning of the stimulus and then a different meaning in the conclusion.

[sxzhao]

I totally get it that "an absense of govenment" =/ "chaos"
But to me, it's more a logical leap like the ones we often encounter in sufficient assumption questions. The author acknowledges "some people think laisser fair capitalism supports pro-anarchy position" but rejects this position by assuming "if laisser faire capitalism, then there will be chaos, which fails a necessary condition for a social philosopy to be acceptable.

This assumption is just left hanging. So I chose B, which speaks to the fact the the assumption taken is not justified in any way.