QUESTION: 1

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” everyone in the city of Omelas is happy — everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people’s actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this “greatest good” philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality. First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything — or, more importantly, anyone — can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn’t this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin’s story.

Which of the following best sums up the author’s opinion of utilitarianism?

It is an ethical theory.
It is the ethical theory that people should all live by.
It is a useful but problematic ethical theory.
It does not adequately measure happiness.
It underestimates the intrinsic value of human beings.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The author is critical of utilitarianism, but she also includes evidence that it is a useful theory. LeGuin’s story, for example, shows how the sacrifice of one can create the happiness of many. The author also notes that “many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on” utilitarianism, demonstrating that it is a useful ethical theory. The word choice throughout also indicates that the author feels that this ethical theory has both positive and negative aspects. For example, she calls it “problematic,” but not “wrongheaded” or “faulty.” She calls the problem of the suffering of the few for the happiness of the many a “dilemma,” not a “flaw” or “failure.” She asks questions rather than making statements about the immorality of utilitarian choices. Choice a is incorrect because it simply states a fact from the essay; it does not express an opinion. The author clearly states that “there are several serious problems with utilitarianism as a basis for morality,” so choice b is incorrect. Although the statements in choices d and e are true and clearly stated in the text, these are specific criticisms of utilitarianism and do not sum up the author’s opinion of this ethical theory.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 2

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” everyone in the city of Omelas is happy — everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people’s actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this “greatest good” philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality. First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything — or, more importantly, anyone — can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn’t this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin’s story.

According to the passage, in utilitarianism

only intentions have moral significance.
consequences are important, but intentions are more important.
intentions and consequences are equally important.
intentions are important, but consequences are more important.
only consequences have moral significance.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

In the second paragraph, the author states that “only the consequences of [people’s] actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced”.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 3

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” everyone in the city of Omelas is happy — everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people’s actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this “greatest good” philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality. First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything — or, more importantly, anyone — can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn’t this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin’s story.

The author summarizes LeGuin’s story primarily to

show how good the story is.
get readers interested in the story.
illustrates the power of words.
illustrates the central problem with utilitarianism.
illustrates a utilitarian utopia.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

LeGuin’s story illustrates the problem with utilitarianism by describing how one person (the child) lives in misery so that others can be happy. The author explains that “utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few” and then states that this problem is “so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin’s story.”Choice is incorrect because the author does not comment on or make any inferences about the overall quality of the story; she only comments on it in relation to its demonstration of the dilemma of utilitarianism.Readers may be interested in the story after reading this passage (choice b), but again, the purpose of including the story is made evident by the last sentence in the passage. The author does not quote directly from the story, and she is clearly not summarizing it to illustrate the power of words, so choice c is incorrect.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 4

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” everyone in the city of Omelas is happy — everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people’s actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this “greatest good” philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality. First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything — or, more importantly, anyone — can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn’t this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin’s story.

From the passage, it can be inferred that the author

may use utilitarianism occasionally but not as a guiding moral principle.
would never use utilitarianism to make a decision about what is right or wrong.
uses utilitarianism regularly to make moral decisions.
believes utilitarianism is a good basis for social policy.
thinks most people do not really understand utilitarianism.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The author is critical of utilitarianism and admits it has several problems, but she does not reject it as an ethical theory. In fact, she concedes that it is useful in creating social policies and legislation. Therefore, the most logical inference is that she may use utilitarianism occasionally but not as a guiding moral principle. Choices b and c are therefore incorrect. Choice d is incorrect because nothing in the passage indicates how she feels about utilitarianism as a basis for social policy. The passage does not state that she believes most people do not really understand utilitarianism, so choice e is incorrect.

Reveal Solution Next Question

Free GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Braindumps (page: 2)

Pass your GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability exam with these free Actual Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 1

Explanation:

QUESTION: 2

Explanation:

QUESTION: 3

Explanation:

QUESTION: 4

Explanation: