#27 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Bruce,

Several comments in this thread have indicated that the author of Passage B likely agrees with the suggestion of giving the land back to the Native Americans, but that we just can't be sure. In fact, the author actually doesn't agree with this remedy (and in fact in the original article that this passage comes from, makes that point explicit.) The problem is that the author's response to the "one natural (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning" is omitted from this passage.

I think that one point that may be missing in this discussion is just how extreme this proposed remedy is. The argument presented is basically, "Well the Native Americans were on the land first, and the European settlers unjustly took their land, so now the land should be given back." So what does that mean practically speaking? The United States of America, the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically, would just dissolve and all of the non-Native American U.S. citizens would leave the country? That not only isn't practical, it's completely unrealistic, and isn't what the author actually would recommend.

When the author describes the way of reasoning as "natural (one might almost say obvious)" that doesn't mean that it is correct. It's almost like saying, "at first glance, this seems like a straightforward easy solution." Again, we aren't provided with the author's response to this reasoning, which makes it difficult to see that that author does not necessarily endorse it.

[alex.r.berson@gmail.com]

Hi there,

I'm confused as to why (E) is incorrect. I understand the argument for (A), but isn't the author in passage B attempting to undermine the view behind Indian Nonintercourse Act?

[Dana D]

Hey Alex,

Passage B is not undermining the Nonintercourse Act, no. The first paragraph of passage B explains what the Act is, while the second paragraph presents an argument for why Native Americans have claim to the land in the first place. Basically, the second paragraph is justifying the Nonintercourse Act and saying Native Americans have right to the land - you can see this in lines 54-57.

Hope that helps!

[jona_zx]

"Answer choice (D): Here, the answer choice is incorrect because Passage A does not provide an argument in favor of a view. Rather, Passage A simply details a view, that of the theory of justice regarding property. Further, it is incorrect to say that Passage B does not provide an argument in support of a view, since it provides reasons for the position that land in North America should be returned to Native Americans where feasible to do so."

I am confused about this explanation. Why would passage A not have an argument? The last paragraph starts saying that some situations fall outside of the previous two principles, and then gives reasons for this claim (gives the examples of stealing and fraud).

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jona,

An argument is a view (i.e. conclusion) along with support for that view (i.e. premises). Not all viewpoints in reading comp passages have arguments supporting those viewpoints. For example, a passage may briefly mention an opponent's viewpoint without providing the reasons that the opponent has for holding that viewpoint. This is one reason that viewpoints and arguments are two separate items in our VIEWSTAMP analysis.

Passage A provides a view (that a principle of rectification is needed to address past injustices) without really providing reasons to support that view (other than the fact that the other two principles don't cover past injustices).

Even if you do consider Passage A as arguing for the need for a principle of rectification, Answer D still doesn't work.

It's critical to pay close attention to the exact wording and order of each answer for these types of questions.

Answer D states "Passage A briefly states a view and then provides an argument for it" (my emphasis). In order for this description to be correct, the view must come at the beginning of Passage A (and it must be brief) and then the rest of the Passage A must argue for that view that appears at the beginning of the passage. If any part of this doesn't match up, then the answer is wrong.

Passage A starts off by describing the two principles of justice regarding property and how they should work. As this takes two of the three paragraphs, it wouldn't really be accurate to describe this as brief. (I'm grouping lines 9-20 together as one paragraph for simplicity although technically these lines are separated into 4 paragraphs due to the numbered bullet points.) The third paragraph then adds the author's view that a third principle (of rectification) is needed. This is not an argument for the view at the beginning of the passage, as Answer D describes, but a completely new point/view made by the author.