(Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills ) Flashcards

1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story, yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we, at last, grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this "Will to Truth" in us? In fact, we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last, we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it, at last, seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk. 2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the in transitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretense, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation, one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear. Which of the following definitions of Nietzsche's Will to Truth is the most accurate?

Answer: An intrinsic desire to know the truth.

The passage introduces 'The Will to Truth' as something that 'tempt[s] us to many a hazardous enterprise' and prompts the question, 'WHAT really is this 'Will to Truth' in us?'. This framing suggests an inherent, internal drive or impulse within humans to seek and value truth. It's an intrinsic desire that the author then proceeds to question the value of.

Which of the following statements best describes the concept "HOW COULD SOMETHING ORIGINATE FROM IT'S OPPOSITE?" It's impossible for such a genesis to occur.”

Answer: Light cannot be considered good just because it gets rid of darkness.

The passage critiques metaphysicians for believing that 'things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own' and cannot originate from their opposites (e.g., truth from error). This implies that metaphysicians would argue that good things possess an inherent goodness, not merely the absence of bad. Therefore, stating that 'Light cannot be considered good just because it gets rid of darkness' aligns with the metaphysicians' view that good has an independent, inherent origin, which the author then challenges.

Who is the Sphinx that the writer is referring to in this passage?

Answer: A representative of those that ask questions.

The passage explicitly states, 'That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here?'. This directly links the Sphinx to the act of posing questions. In Greek mythology, the Sphinx is known for asking riddles, further solidifying its role as a representative of those who ask challenging questions.

What may be the next probable passage in the book after this?

Answer: The author discussing characteristics of things that are truthful.

The author concludes the passage by stating, 'And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.' These new philosophers are described as those who will 'concern himself with such dangerous 'Perhapses'!' and question the 'VALUE of this Will [to Truth],' including whether good and evil are 'essentially identical.' Therefore, the next probable passage would logically delve into these new philosophical perspectives, likely by discussing the nature and characteristics of truth, or its perceived opposites, from this fresh viewpoint.

On arriving in Moscow by a morning train, Levin had put up at the house of his elder half-brother, Koznishev. After changing his clothes he went down to his brother’s study, intending to talk to him at once about the object of his visit, and to ask his advice; but his brother was not alone. With him there was a well-known professor of philosophy, who had come from Harkov expressly to clear up a difference that had arisen between them on a very important philosophical question. The professor was carrying on a hot crusade against materialists. Sergey Koznishev had been following this crusade with interest, and after reading the professor’s last article, he had written him a letter stating his objections. He accused the professor of making too great concessions to the materialists. And the professor had promptly appeared to argue the matter out. The point in discussion was the question then in vogue: Is there a line to be drawn between psychological and physiological phenomena in man? and if so, where? Sergey Ivanovitch met his brother with the smile of chilly friendliness he always had for everyone, and introducing him to the professor, went on with the conversation. A little man in spectacles, with a narrow forehead, tore himself from the discussion for an instant to greet Levin, and then went on talking without paying any further attention to him. Levin sat down to wait till the professor should go, but he soon began to get interested in the subject under discussion. Levin had come across the magazine articles about which they were disputing, and had read them, interested in them as a development of the first principles of science, familiar to him as a natural science student at the university. But he had never connected these scientific deductions as to the origin of man as an animal, as to reflex action, biology, and sociology, with those questions as to the meaning of life and death to himself, which had of late been more and more often in his mind. As he listened to his brother’s argument with the professor, he noticed that they connected these scientific questions with those spiritual problems, that at times they almost touched on the latter; but every time they were close upon what seemed to him the chief point, they promptly beat a hasty retreat, and plunged again into a sea of subtle distinctions, reservations, quotations, allusions, and appeals to authorities, and it was with difficulty that he understood what they were talking about. ‘I cannot admit it,’ said Sergey Ivanovitch, with his habitual clearness, precision of expression, and elegance of phrase. ‘I cannot in any case agree with Keiss that my whole conception of the external world has been derived from perceptions. The most fundamental idea, the idea of existence, has not been received by me through sensation; indeed, there is no special sense-organ for the transmission of such an idea.’ ‘Yes, but they—Wurt, and Knaust, and Pripasov—would answer that your consciousness of existence is derived from the conjunction of all your sensations, that that consciousness of existence is the result of your sensations. Wurt, indeed, says plainly that, assuming there are no sensations, it follows that there is no idea of existence.’ ‘I maintain the contrary,’ began Sergey Ivanovitch. But here it seemed to Levin that just as they were close upon the real point of the matter, they were again retreating, and he made up his mind to put a question to the professor. ‘According to that, if my senses are annihilated, if my body is dead, I can have no existence of any sort?’ he queried. The professor, in annoyance, and, as it were, mental suffering at the interruption, looked round at the strange inquirer, more like a bargeman than a philosopher, and turned his eyes upon Sergey Ivanovitch, as though to ask: What’s one to say to him? But Sergey Ivanovitch, who had been talking with far less heat and one-sidedness than the professor, and who had sufficient breadth of mind to answer the professor, and at the same time to comprehend the simple and natural point of view from which the question was put, smiled and said: ‘That question we have no right to answer as yet.’ ‘We have not the requisite data,’ chimed in the professor, and he went back to his argument. ‘No,’ he said; ‘I would point out the fact that if, as Pripasov directly asserts, perception is based on sensation, then we are bound to distinguish sharply between these two conceptions.’ Levin listened no more, and simply waited for the professor to go. How would you describe Levin's personality?

Answer: Timid

Levin's actions throughout the passage suggest timidity. He 'sat down to wait till the professor should go' and only asks a question after some hesitation. When he does speak, the professor reacts with 'annoyance' and dismisses him as 'more like a bargeman than a philosopher,' indicating Levin is perceived as an outsider and is not assertive in this academic environment.

What are the author's thoughts on the philosophers of his era?

Answer: He believes there is an emerging wave of philosophers who believe in the definition of truth by its opposite.

The author criticizes 'metaphysicians of all times' for their 'belief in antitheses of values' and their failure to question whether 'truth out of error' or 'generous deed out of selfishness' is possible. He then expresses anticipation for 'new philosophers beginning to appear' who will embrace 'dangerous 'Perhapses'' and explore the possibility that good and evil are 'essentially identical.' This indicates the author believes a new wave of thinkers will challenge the traditional separation of values and explore the interconnectedness of apparent opposites.

Which of the following professor character developments do you think is most likely to happen as the tale progresses?

Answer: He believes non-university graduates to be inferior.

The professor's reaction to Levin's question is highly dismissive and condescending. He looks at Levin 'in annoyance, and, as it were, mental suffering at the interruption,' and mentally labels him 'more like a bargeman than a philosopher.' This strong negative judgment of someone outside his academic sphere suggests an elitist attitude and a belief in the inferiority of non-university graduates.

Sergey Levin, Levin's half-brother, is working with a philosophy professor on the real-world boundary between psychology and physiology. Which of the following statements would support the professor's point of view?

Answer: An animal with the sensory pathways removed from their spinal cord ceases to display any interaction with the environment.

The professor's argument hinges on the idea that 'perception is based on sensation.' If an animal with its sensory pathways removed (a physiological intervention) ceases to interact with its environment (a psychological/behavioral outcome), it directly supports the professor's view that physiological sensations are fundamental for psychological phenomena like perception and interaction. This demonstrates a clear link between the physical and the mental as he describes.

What is Levin's most likely profession, based on the passage?

Answer: Farmer

When Levin asks a question, the professor looks at him 'more like a bargeman than a philosopher.' This comparison suggests Levin is seen as a working-class individual, someone engaged in manual labor rather than intellectual pursuits. While 'bargeman' isn't 'farmer,' it strongly implies a rural, non-academic background. Historically, and within the context of Tolstoy's *Anna Karenina* (from which this passage is taken), Levin is indeed a landowner deeply involved in farming and rural life, which aligns with this inference.

What is the best way to describe Sergey's relationship with his half-brother?

Answer: Affectionate

While Sergey initially greets Levin with 'chilly friendliness,' he later demonstrates understanding and patience. When Levin asks his question, Sergey 'smiled and said: ‘That question we have no right to answer as yet.’' He comprehends Levin's 'simple and natural point of view,' which contrasts sharply with the professor's annoyance. This ability to gently engage and understand his brother, despite the academic setting, indicates an underlying affectionate or at least deeply respectful and understanding bond.

A HISTORY PASSAGE In the late 18th century, citizens throughout rural Massachusetts shut down courthouses attempting to conduct debt collection hearings, farmers in western Pennsylvania and other parts of the western frontier refused to pay an excise on whiskey, and members of the Pennsylvania Dutch community in the east of the state harassed officials attempting to assess a direct tax on houses. In each case, the government's initial response to protests of "taxation without representation" led to an exacerbation of tensions: radicalized citizens banded together, creating armed militias in open rebellion against the ruling regime. These popular uprisings against taxation and economic hardship were not—as many Americans would now assume upon hearing such descriptions—revolts against the British monarchy in prelude to the American Revolution (1775–83). Rather, Shays' Rebellion (1786–87), the Whiskey Rebellion (1791–94), and Fries's Rebellion (1798–1800) occurred after the British had been vanquished. Though each episode has distinctive historical significance, it is particularly instructive to examine the evolving reaction to popular protest by the incipient United States government. In the case of the uprisings throughout western and central Massachusetts that would come collectively to be known as "Shays' Rebellion," the federal government existed in a much attenuated form, enfeebled due to the considerable amount of sovereignty ceded to the thirteen original states under the Articles of Confederation. After subsistence farmers, veterans of the Continental Army, and other rural citizens found themselves hard-pressed in 1786 by debts incurred during hard times and taxes newly levied by the Massachusetts government, they began to revolt, at first just closing down courts but soon organizing armed militias, culminating in an attempt led by veteran Daniel Shays to seize a federal armory in Springfield. The federal government lacked the funds to assemble its own militia and counter the uprising, so it was left to the governor of Massachusetts, James Bowdoin, to handle—and he had to turn to assistance from more than a hundred wealthy merchants to bankroll mercenaries, who quashed the rebels. The moneyed and propertied interests—creditors to whom many debts were owed—had been unnerved by the events in Massachusetts, and were instrumental in the creation and ratification of the new Constitution, which greatly concentrated power in a more robust central government. When many western farmers refused to pay a 1791 excise tax on whiskey, the newly empowered federal government was able to muster a formidable response after resistance grew more organized. In 1794, President Washington himself led a massive federalized militia of nearly 13,000 troops that would effortlessly scatter the resistance forces. The reaction by President Adams to the smaller rebellion led by John Fries years later would be similarly heavy-handed. This tendency toward increased centralization of power has only worsened since the 18th century. As the federal government has accumulated strength, state and municipal governments—and, ultimately, the people—have lost their sovereignty. And while the moneyed had to foot the bill directly to protect their property (and continue collecting their rents) in quelling Shays' Rebellion, since the adoption of the new Constitution in 1789, the federal government has been able to make the people pay directly for their own repression—a fact recently highlighted in the assault, covertly orchestrated across several cities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security, on the 2011 Occupy movement. In the end, the people have only traded one master for another: the feudal relic of British monarchy has been usurped by a modern bureaucratic behemoth, ultimately in thrall to the nouveau aristocracy of corporate "persons" and the rapacious class of executives that constitute the homunculi within. "The federal government has been able to make the people directly pay for their own repression," the author states in paragraph 5. Based on the rest of the paragraph, this is most likely meant to convey the following:

Answer: the government requires citizens to pay taxes, which are partly used to fund police and military responses to protests.

The passage contrasts the quelling of Shays' Rebellion, where 'the moneyed had to foot the bill directly,' with the post-Constitution era. It states that 'since the adoption of the new Constitution in 1789, the federal government has been able to make the people pay directly for their own repression.' This implies that citizens, through their taxes, fund the government's police and military forces, which are then used to suppress popular protests, effectively making the people finance their own control.

The author's position on "moneyed and proprietied interests" (paragraph 4) is best summarized as:

Answer: negative.

The author consistently portrays 'moneyed and propertied interests' negatively. They are described as 'unnerved' by popular uprisings and 'instrumental' in creating a 'more robust central government' that ultimately serves a 'nouveau aristocracy of corporate 'persons' and the rapacious class of executives.' This language clearly conveys a critical and disapproving stance towards their influence and actions.

In the first paragraph, the author most usually omits particular details of the events in order to:

Answer: set an expectation that is reversed in the following paragraph.

The first paragraph describes popular uprisings against taxation and economic hardship, using language that strongly suggests the American Revolution. However, the second paragraph immediately clarifies, 'These popular uprisings... were not... revolts against the British monarchy... Rather, Shays' Rebellion... occurred after the British had been vanquished.' This deliberate setup and subsequent reversal of the reader's likely initial assumption is a rhetorical device to highlight the author's main point about post-Revolutionary rebellions.

According to some researchers, the US federal government did less to safeguard residents whose homes were taken away in false foreclosures during the 2007–2008 financial crisis than to defend the banks that engaged in this illegal action. What effect does this have on the passage if it's true?

Answer: It supports the author's central argument.

The author's central argument, especially in the final paragraph, is that the federal government has become a 'bureaucratic behemoth, ultimately in thrall to the nouveau aristocracy of corporate 'persons' and the rapacious class of executives.' The hypothetical scenario, where the government protects banks over citizens in foreclosures, directly supports this claim that the government prioritizes powerful corporate interests over the well-being of the general populace, thus strengthening the author's main thesis.

In the second paragraph, the author makes which of the following assumptions?

Answer: A significant number of Americans today are unfamiliar with the rebellions that occurred after the Revolution.

The second paragraph states, 'These popular uprisings... were not—as many Americans would now assume upon hearing such descriptions—revolts against the British monarchy.' The phrase 'as many Americans would now assume' directly indicates the author's belief that a significant portion of the contemporary American population is unaware of these specific post-Revolutionary rebellions, leading them to misinterpret the initial descriptions.

The Constitution concisely organizes the country’s basic political institutions. The main text comprises seven articles. Article I vests all legislative powers in the Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Great Compromise stipulated that representation in the House would be based on population, and each state is entitled to two senators. Members of the House serve terms of two years, senators terms of six. Among the powers delegated to Congress are the right to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, provide for military forces, declare war, and determine member seating and rules of procedure. The House initiates impeachment proceedings, and the Senate adjudicates them. Article II vests executive power in the office of the presidency of the United States. The president, selected by an electoral college to serve a four-year term, is given responsibilities common to chief executives, including serving as commander in chief of the armed forces, negotiating treaties (two-thirds of the Senate must concur), and granting pardons. The president’s vast appointment powers, which include members of the federal judiciary and the cabinet, are subject to the “advice and consent” (majority approval) of the Senate (Article II, Section 2). Originally presidents were eligible for continual reelection, but the Twenty-second Amendment (1951) later prohibited any person from being elected president more than twice. Although the formal powers of the president are constitutionally quite limited and vague in comparison with those of the Congress, a variety of historical and technological factors—such as the centralization of power in the executive branch during war and the advent of television—have increased the informal responsibilities of the office extensively to embrace other aspects of political leadership, including proposing legislation to Congress. The federal government is obliged by many constitutional provisions to respect the individual citizen’s basic rights. Some civil liberties were specified in the original document, notably in the provisions guaranteeing the writ of habeas corpus and trial by jury in criminal cases (Article III, Section 2) and forbidding bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9). But the most significant limitations to government’s power over the individual were added in 1791 in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the rights of conscience, such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and the right of peaceful assembly and petition. Other guarantees in the Bill of Rights require fair procedures for persons accused of a crime—such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure, compulsory self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and excessive bail—and guarantees of a speedy and public trial by a local, impartial jury before an impartial judge and representation by counsel. Rights of private property are also guaranteed. Although the Bill of Rights is a is a broad expression of individual civil liberties, the ambiguous wording of many of its provisions—such as the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments”—has been a source of constitutional controversy and intense political debate. Further, the rights guaranteed are not absolute, and there has been considerable disagreement about the extent to which they limit governmental authority. The Bill of Rights originally protected citizens only from the national government. For example, although the Constitution prohibited the establishment of an official religion at the national level, the official state-supported religion of Massachusetts was Congregationalism until 1833. Thus, individual citizens had to look to state constitutions for protection of their rights against state governments. During the early stages of the Afghan War, intelligence agencies used psychological techniques such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding on interrogated captives. Which section of the constitution, according to the report, would prevent this from happening to American citizens?

Answer: Eighth Amendment

The passage explicitly mentions the 'Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments'' as a guarantee within the Bill of Rights. Sleep deprivation and waterboarding are widely considered forms of torture or cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, this amendment would be the constitutional provision designed to prevent such practices from being inflicted upon American citizens.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to defend individual rights, as stated in the text. Which of the following is NOT an example of a situation for which this statute aimed to provide individual liberties?

Answer: A national religion allowing people to practice across states.

The passage explicitly states that 'the Constitution prohibited the establishment of an official religion at the national level.' The First Amendment guarantees freedom *of* religion and prevents the government from establishing a national religion. Therefore, a national religion, even one allowing practice across states, is precisely what the Bill of Rights aimed to prevent, not provide for as an individual liberty.

Which of the following was a likely basis for the creation of the 22nd Amendment?

Answer: The oppression by a monarchy previously was an example of abuse of power.

The passage notes that the 22nd Amendment limited presidents to two terms, stating 'Originally presidents were eligible for continual reelection.' This restriction on executive power reflects a historical concern about the concentration of power and potential for tyranny, similar to the abuses associated with monarchies. The American Revolution was fought against a monarchy, and limiting presidential terms helps prevent a similar long-term hold on power.

One of the clauses of the first amendment that has come to be considered as a part of the law is that no one can yell "fire!" In a congested space. Why would they put this restriction in place?

Answer: It infringes on the safety of others.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, this right is not absolute. Yelling 'fire!' in a crowded space when there is no actual fire is a classic example of speech that is restricted because it directly incites panic, creates disorder, and poses a significant risk to public safety, potentially leading to injuries or even fatalities. The restriction prioritizes the collective safety of individuals over an individual's right to reckless speech.

Why does the text declare the Bill of Rights to be "ambiguous?"

Answer: There are definitions lacking that create controversy.

The text states, 'the ambiguous wording of many of its provisions—such as the Second Amendment’s right 'to keep and bear arms' and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments'—has been a source of constitutional controversy and intense political debate.' This clearly indicates that the lack of precise definitions for key terms within these amendments leads to ongoing disputes and makes their application uncertain, hence the ambiguity.