Q19 - Raphaela: Forcing people to help

[tamwaiman]

I would like to know why (D) is wrong?

Is the reason that (D) lacks of "emigration" or adds "forces people to help" ?

THX

[noah]

The crux of this problem is to pinpoint the disagreement. Raphaela says that the gov't can't tax us because that forces people to help others, which is morally wrong.

Edward feels that gov't can tax us as long as people have the right to leave.

(B) correctly names the point of disagreement - Edward feels that governments that allow emigration are entitled to tax people, while Raphaela states that no government has the right.

(A) is tempting - as it states Edwards position, however Raphaela would agree with this (it doesn't say "only governments that do not permit emigration...)

(C) is too broad for either point of view.

(D) is a tricky one! Edward and Raphaela probably agree that the government would be forcing people to help others: Raphaela says as such, and Edward doesn't explicilty speak to it, but does refer to "that right", referring either to the government's right to redistribute resources or its right to force people to help others. In the former case, we don't really hear Edward's opinion on the taxation=forced help issue, and in the latter, we see he agrees. Either way, there's no disagreement about the taxation=forced help issue.

(E) does not express either point of view. It's too broad as it discusses simply helping others, not taxation.

[tzyc]

I'm still not sure about (D)...

Edward and Raphaela agree that the government would be forcing people to help others

I thought Raphaela disagrees to force people to help, so disagrees with the government to tax...
Or when you say "would be forcing", does this mean that would happen later? Or even now?(It's the situation they already have?)
Or even...it's a definition? They both think those " government that redistributes rescources via taxation" are those government force " people to help others"?

Thank you.

[noah]

I'm still not sure about (D)...

Edward and Raphaela agree that the government would be forcing people to help others

I thought Raphaela disagrees to force people to help, so disagrees with the government to tax...
Or when you say "would be forcing", does this mean that would happen later? Or even now?(It's the situation they already have?)
Or even...it's a definition? They both think those " government that redistributes rescources via taxation" are those government force " people to help others"?

Thank you.

I edited my original explanation a bit to make it clearer. In short, I think you're not yet seeing what (D) is talking about. (D) is about definitions: does taxation = forcing people to help others. There's no disagreement about definitions in the stimulus, the disagreement is about whether the government has the right to do all of that.

[renata.gomez]

Hi,

I see how B is right, but Im still having trouble eliminating D. I thought it was correct because Raphaela thinks that the government forces people to help others when they redistribute resources Via taxation, and Edward would disagree and say that they're not being forced to help others in that situation because the government doesn't force them to stay under their rule. they could just leave, so they're not being "forced".

I would greatly appreciate another explanation.

Thank you!

I actually just realized that the first sentence of Edward's counter states what they disagree about: Whether the govt has "the right", not the actions of the government.

[anurag111284]

Hi,

I see how B is right, but Im still having trouble eliminating D. I thought it was correct because Raphaela thinks that the government forces people to help others when they redistribute resources Via taxation, and Edward would disagree and say that they're not being forced to help others in that situation because the government doesn't force them to stay under their rule. they could just leave, so they're not being "forced".

I would greatly appreciate another explanation.

Thank you!

I actually just realized that the first sentence of Edward's counter states what they disagree about: Whether the govt has "the right", not the actions of the government.

D says: "Any government that redistributes resources via taxation forces people to help others."

This statement implies that the government has succeeded in taxing, at least some people, and redistributing resources.

But if a government follows Edward's rule, then those who don't agree to government taxation would emigrate. The government would thus not 'suceed' in taxing such people.

Hence the situation envisaged in D would not materialize in an 'Edwardian' government.

Thus there is no disagreement b/w Raphaela and Edward in respect of D.

Hope this helps.

[wxpttbh]

I eliminate all choices including "emigration". I think Raphaela had no mention about emigration, so we can not infer his idea about emigration. .

[HondaC94]

Same. I eliminated A B and E at first because Raphaela doesn't talk about the emigration issue. Can anybody help me with it?

[krisk743]

Hey admins, answer the last two questions about how Raphaela doesn't bring up permitting emigration. It's too large of an assumption to think Raphaela also believes the government permits emigration. Even if it is the same government...

[JosephV]

Hey admins, answer the last two questions about how Raphaela doesn't bring up permitting emigration. It's too large of an assumption to think Raphaela also believes the government permits emigration. Even if it is the same government...

First, man ain't you cocky!!!

You're right, it probably is too large of an assumption to say that Raphaela also believes that the government permits emigration. Who knows what she really thinks any way? However, we know what she says and that is that "no government has the right to redistribute resources via taxation." That "no government" implicitly includes a government which permits emigration.

Therefore, Raphaela would disagree with (B), whereas Edward would agree with (B) , hence (B) is the right answer.

[ohthatpatrick]

Thanks, Joseph. (fyi --- admins are only supposed to be answering posts by blue/green students or if a yellow student starts a thread).

You'll see this on ID the Disagreement and even on some Inference questions. If we've been given a categorical statement, we often can judge new/unfamiliar particulars, as long as they fall under the umbrella of the categorical statement.

Suppose R said this:

RAPHAELA: No clown has the right to smash the Pope with a pie in the face.


Do we know how she would feel about this claim?
Any clown that has gone to Catholic school or has served for at least 10 years as a janitor at the Vatican has the right to smash the Pope with a pie in the face

YES, WE DO! We know she would disagree, even though she never discussed Catholic school or being a Vatican janitor.