Critical Reasoning

Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X's policies. Only total divestment-the sale of all stock in companies that have factories or business offices in X-can do this. Therefore, the university should divest totally.

Professor B: Our aim should be to encourage X to change its policies. Partial divestment is the best way to achieve this aim. Therefore, the university should sell its stock only in companies that either sell goods to X's government, or do the majority of their business in X, or treat their workers in X unfairly.

Professor A's and Professor B's arguments differ in which of the following ways?

(A) They state the same goal but propose different ways of achieving it.
(B) They state different goals but propose the same way of achieving them.
(C) They state different goals and propose different ways of achieving them.
(D) They disagree about whether the university should sell any stock at all.
(E) They disagree about whether X's policies are objectionable.

OA: C
IMO: A; Please let me know Why I'm wrong

Please be considerate to others, do not provide OA with question or if you are providing, please hide it with spoiler.


A: PURPOSE - We must make a strong moral statement against Country X's policies
B: PURPOSE - Our aim should be to encourage X to change its policies.

As you can see both seek for different objective.

Thanks sunnyjohn!

agree with ur post.
but then, the goal in both the cases is to make X to withdraw it's policies, either by encoraging the country X or by making a strong moral statement.

You can't go too far in reading the purpose of A. He hasn't said he wants to change policies, only that he wants to protest. When you say A wants to make the country change policies you are making an assumption, although perfectly logical, that is not supported by the stimulus.