Hi, could somebody help me out with this question please? I can't figure out which one is the best answer and the book has used this question as an example in the "Logical Reasoning" Strategies section without actually giving any explanation. _____________________________ _____________________________ _ Most radicals who argue for violent revolution and complete overthrow of our existing society have no clear idea what will emerge from the destruction. They just assert that things are so bad now that any change would have to be a change for the better. But surely this is mistaken, for things might actually turn out to be worse. The most effective point that can be raised against this argument is that the author says nothing about, (A) the manner in which the radicals might foment their revolution. (B) the specific results of the revolution that would be changes for the worse. (C) the economic arguments the radicals use to persuade people to join in their cause. (D) the fact that most people are really satisfied with the present system so that the chance of total revolution is very small. (E) the loss of life and property that is likely to accompany total destruction of a society.
My guess is "B", but don't listen to me, I got a 149... Did I mention I kicked a$$ on the GRE though?- J
Page created in 0.352 seconds with 17 queries.