Reading Comprehension

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.

Therefore, in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce to an erroneous theory is lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. As primary virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.

These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the primacy of justice. One might inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so, how they can be accounted for. To this end, it is necessary to work out a theory of justice in light of which these assertions can be interpreted and assessed.

Begin by considering the role of principles of justice. Assume that a society is more or less sufficient association of persons who, in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who, for the most part, act in accordance with them. Suppose further that these rules specify a system of cooperation designed to advance the good of those taking part in it. Then, although a society is a cooperative venture for mutual advancement, it is typically market by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests. There is an identity of interests since social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts. There is a conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent to how the greater benefits produced by their collaborations are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends hey each prefer a larger to a lesser share.

A set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements that determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are the principles of social justice: they provide a way for assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.

Question:
The author implies that, in order to ascertain whether convictions concerning the inherent nature of justice are valid, one must

A. Determine the context in which they can be assessed
B. Shed light on the role of principles of justice
C. Meet all the requirements of a just society
D. Account for the principles of justice in society
E. Establish a theory of justice with which to evaluate them

Answer E

Can someone please explain this?
This whole passage is confusing.

Thanks!

sparkles3144 wrote:Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.

Therefore, in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce to an erroneous theory is lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. As primary virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.

These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the primacy of justice. One might inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so, how they can be accounted for. To this end, it is necessary to work out a theory of justice in light of which these assertions can be interpreted and assessed.

Begin by considering the role of principles of justice. Assume that a society is more or less sufficient association of persons who, in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who, for the most part, act in accordance with them. Suppose further that these rules specify a system of cooperation designed to advance the good of those taking part in it. Then, although a society is a cooperative venture for mutual advancement, it is typically market by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests. There is an identity of interests since social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts. There is a conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent to how the greater benefits produced by their collaborations are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends hey each prefer a larger to a lesser share.

A set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements that determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are the principles of social justice: they provide a way for assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.

Question:
The author implies that, in order to ascertain whether convictions concerning the inherent nature of justice are valid, one must

A. Determine the context in which they can be assessed
B. Shed light on the role of principles of justice
C. Meet all the requirements of a just society
D. Account for the principles of justice in society
E. Establish a theory of justice with which to evaluate them

Answer E

The KEY WORDS in the question stem are convictions, inherent, and justice.
Search the passage for these key words and for synonyms of these key words.

Paragraph 3:
These propositions seem to express OUR INTUITIVE CONVICTION of the primacy of JUSTICE.
One might inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so, how they can be accounted for.
In other words, how can determine whether our intuitive convictions are correct?

To this end, it is necessary to work out a theory of justice in light of which these assertions can be interpreted and assessed.
To determine whether our intuitive convictions are correct, we must work out a THEORY OF JUSTICE.

The paraphrases in red support answer choice E:
E: To ascertain whether convictions concerning the inherent nature of justice are valid, we must establish a theory of justice with which to evaluate them.

The correct answer is E.

the following is ideas of the passage

- justice is important
- need to make a theory of justice
- on which theory of justice is based

looking for words "conviction" we can find the relevant lines yeilding the answers

the passage is about how to work out justice. the structure is hard to realize.

the quesiton is relevant to one place in the passage. the inference from one sentence is hard.

LSAT passages though easy to understand have many hard questions requiring hard inference. if you like hard inference , take lsat passage. gmat passage is harder to understand but its questions is more easy. this point is correct because business managers need to understand the problem more than to infer from a sentence.