CAT 2020 PREP online
JOIN THE VARC CRASH COURSE FOR CAT 2020!
CONTACT NOW!
Whatsapp 09674548313!
A convincing message must be logical, and in a political discourse this means, according to Aristotle, that a proposal must have obvious advantages compared to an alternative. The pro-Constitution campaign did indeed concentrate on the advantages of the new treaty. Quite logical. However, two remarks must be made.
In the first place: the campaigners confused “this is better” and “this is good”. Again and again, they said that the proposed Constitution was an improvement compared to the old treaty of Nice. This was true, because the European Parliament was to receive greater powers and democratic controls increased. Many people will consider these things to be improvements, and therefore, the campaigners argued, the Dutch could agree with the Constitution.
But the issue was not whether the new treaty was better for Europe; it was presented as good for Europe. And this was not the whole truth. Better is not good enough. It might be argued, for example, that no treaty could be called a “good constitution” as long as it did not give the power of initiative to the European Parliament; a beefed-up parliament without this vital power cannot be called democratic. Voters could have very sound reasons to think that this treaty was not sufficient, even though they could agree that it was better than the current treaty.
In the second place: what is logic? Not everybody considers the same appeals to be valid. Here is an argument that was really mentioned: “The Eastern Europeans do not support the Dutch during the Eurovision Song Contest, so we will not support a treaty that is benefical to Eastern Europe.” It is understandable that many people thought that this was really irrelevant, but there were people who thought that it was perfectly logical. It was rather tactless of the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bot, to declare that the Song Contest argument was “holding things upside down”, and equally tactless was his suggestion that people should stay away from the polling stations if they did not understand what the treaty was about.
Not only were these remarks tactless, they also disregarded the nature of democracy. If the best policy could be deduced logically, we could give supreme power to a group of philosophers and live happily ever after. We do not do this, because even the greatest sages make mistakes.
1
Which of the following can be inferred from the discussion about the proposed constitution ?
a. The campaigners had more clarity than the people about the meanings of ‘good’ and ‘better’.
b. Voters agreed that the proposed constitution was better than the current treaty.
c. The improvements presented by the campaigners could not be seen as ‘good’ by the people.
d. The campaigners sent the message that the constitution was better for Europe when it was actually good for Europe.
2
Which of the following would be in line with the author’s views in the passage ?
a. What appears logical to one may not appear logical to the other.
b. The Dutch Minister , Mr Bot did not have a sound conception of logic.
c. Aristotle’s concept of a convincing argument is flawed as it does not talk about ‘tact’.
d. One should not use logic to decide the best policy in the political sphere unless one is a philosopher or a sage.
3
The primary purpose of the author in the passage is to
a. Argue that the campaigners did not apply Aristotle’s theory properly and hence failed in their
Quest.
b. Show that Aristotle’s theory regarding a convincing message in a political discourse is irrelevant when we come to its application.
c. Show that Aristotle’s theory on political discourse can pose problems when it comes to its application in deciding the best policy in political matters.
d. Prove that one cannot entrust the country’s policymaking completely to philosophers.
CAT 2020 PREP online
JOIN THE VARC CRASH COURSE FOR CAT 2020!
CONTACT NOW!
Whatsapp 09674548313!
No comments:
Post a Comment