Analytical Reasoning - IV
| Name: Analytical Reasoning - IV |
Description: Everything that a person does, which is dictated by reason of ignorance is not voluntary. Involuntary actions are those which produce pain and repentance. Incase a man has done something in his ignorance and he does not feel vexed due to his action, he has not acted voluntarily as he was not aware of what he was doing, nor yet involuntarily since he is not pained. - After reading this passage we can arrive at the conclusion that:
- A person is not a voluntary agent, if he acts by reason of ignorance and repents. .
- If an action is done by reason of ignorance and is not voluntary , then it was repented.
- A man is an involuntary agent, if he acts by reason of ignorance.
- Some actions are either involuntary or not voluntary.
- If a man is not a voluntary agent, then he acted by reason of ignorance and repents.
Ans : A
- Everything that God knows necessarily is, because even what we ourselves know necessarily is; and, of course, our knowledge is not as certain as God's knowledge is. But no future contingent thing necessarily is..
Among the following statements, which naturally follows from the above:
- There are no future contingent things.
- It is not true that God has knowledge of only necessary things.
- God has knowledge of no contingent future things.
- It is not possible for us to know God.
- God has knowledge of everything. .
Ans : C
for Questions below
Some lawyers are of the view that the observation of the intrinsic qualities of pornography in any composition depends on literary criticism and hence it is a matter of opinion. It is rather odd, though, that in a legal connection, serious critics themselves quite often behave as if they believed criticism to be a matter of opinion. Why be a critic - and teach in universities - in case criticism involves nothing but uttering capricious and arbitrary opinions ? - In the above argument the author is trying to establish that
- whether a composition can be called pornographic or not is a matter of opinion. .
- it is not a matter of opinion whether a work is pornographic.
- observance of the qualities of pornography is not dependent on literary criticism.
- critics seem hypocritical.
- critics should not teach at universities.
Ans : D
- The above discussion would be weakened if it is pointed out that:
- literary critics are of the opinion that nothing is pornographic.
- lawyers believe that the observance of the qualities of pornography is a matter of opinion, as literary critics are not in agreement in this regard.
- literary critics are not legal authorities.
- literary critics should not concern themselves with deciding what is pornographic.
- literary critics in the teaching profession at the university level are init only for the money.
Ans : B
|
Share your views...
1 Respones to " "
This has brought around more of the values and instances for the students which by the time they must needed to observe.
October 28, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Post a Comment