Please answer this "boldface role" question
Russell Sage was a highly prominent 19th century financier ;AFTER HIS DEATH,SAGE'S WEALTH ESTABLISHED A NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL CONDITIONS.Sage was also at the center of perhaps that era's most notorious lawsuit, Laidlaw versus Sage, which made him a figure of public revulsion. An aggrieved man entered Sage's office and quietly told him that he had a scatchel full of dynamite,which he would detonate unless Sage promised to pay him over $1 million.While continuing to speak in a calm controversial tone to the explosive-toting man,Sage walked over to the office door,where a clerk named Laidlaw stood waiting to speak to the Wall Street titan. Sage casually turned Laidlaw around, holding him so that Laidlaw's body was directly between Sage and the bomber.At this point,the bomber detonated the dynamite.Laidlaw's body took the brunt of the blast inteended for Sage, leaving Laidlaw with severe life long injuries;Sage was unharmed.Sage, a man of vast personal wealth, never compensated Laidlaw in any way and repeatedly fought court efforts to force him to do so.After his death, Sage's wealth established a non-profit foundation for the improvement of public social conditions.THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT EVERY EFFORT AT SOCIETAL BETTERMENT MERELY SERVES TO CONCEAL SOME PRIVATE CRIME.
Consider the uppercase sentences to be the " boldfaced " sentences.
The functions of the boldfaced sentences can best be described as
(A) The first states a general principle and the second gives a specific example of its application
(B) The first gives a specific example of a phenomenon and the second provides a flawed generalization about the phenomenon from that particular instance.
(C) The first describes an example of an action and the second logically generalizes based on that example.
(D) The first cites a historical instance of an activity and the second assesses at its future efforts.
(E) The first establishes an initial claim contradicted by the rest of the para and the second presents the valid, corrected conclusion.
The answer to this question is given as (B) . But how can we say that it is a flawed conclusion.(It sounds flawed because it is an unfair generalization).However, is that the "function" of the second bolded sentence ? To give a flawed conclusion ?
Should we view the para from the "author's point of view" ? Because the author would disagree that the function of the second bolded sentence is to give a flawed generalization.
And option (C) looks good too..
Please reply ...
Russell Sage was a highly prominent 19th century financier ;AFTER HIS DEATH,SAGE'S WEALTH ESTABLISHED A NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL CONDITIONS.Sage was also at the center of perhaps that era's most notorious lawsuit, Laidlaw versus Sage, which made him a figure of public revulsion. An aggrieved man entered Sage's office and quietly told him that he had a scatchel full of dynamite,which he would detonate unless Sage promised to pay him over $1 million.While continuing to speak in a calm controversial tone to the explosive-toting man,Sage walked over to the office door,where a clerk named Laidlaw stood waiting to speak to the Wall Street titan. Sage casually turned Laidlaw around, holding him so that Laidlaw's body was directly between Sage and the bomber.At this point,the bomber detonated the dynamite.Laidlaw's body took the brunt of the blast inteended for Sage, leaving Laidlaw with severe life long injuries;Sage was unharmed.Sage, a man of vast personal wealth, never compensated Laidlaw in any way and repeatedly fought court efforts to force him to do so.After his death, Sage's wealth established a non-profit foundation for the improvement of public social conditions.THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT EVERY EFFORT AT SOCIETAL BETTERMENT MERELY SERVES TO CONCEAL SOME PRIVATE CRIME.
Consider the uppercase sentences to be the " boldfaced " sentences.
The functions of the boldfaced sentences can best be described as
(A) The first states a general principle and the second gives a specific example of its application
(B) The first gives a specific example of a phenomenon and the second provides a flawed generalization about the phenomenon from that particular instance.
(C) The first describes an example of an action and the second logically generalizes based on that example.
(D) The first cites a historical instance of an activity and the second assesses at its future efforts.
(E) The first establishes an initial claim contradicted by the rest of the para and the second presents the valid, corrected conclusion.
The answer to this question is given as (B) . But how can we say that it is a flawed conclusion.(It sounds flawed because it is an unfair generalization).However, is that the "function" of the second bolded sentence ? To give a flawed conclusion ?
Should we view the para from the "author's point of view" ? Because the author would disagree that the function of the second bolded sentence is to give a flawed generalization.
And option (C) looks good too..
Please reply ...
