Question

It is often said that people should be rewarded for doing a given job in proportion to the effort it costs them to do it. However, a little reflection will show that this is, in fact, a very bad idea, since it would mean that those people with the least skill or natural aptitude for a particular task would be the ones given the most incentive to do it.

Which one of the following argumentative strategies is used above?
(A) stating a general principle and then presenting reasons in favor of adopting it
(B) providing evidence that where the principle under discussion has been adopted, the results usually have been undesirable
(C) demonstrating that a consequence that had been assumed to follow from the principle under consideration need not follow from it
(D) attempting to undermine a general principle by arguing that undesirable consequences would follow from it
(E) showing that, in practice, the principle under consideration could not be uniformly applied

Answer 1

D). Attempting to undermine a general principle by arguing that undesirable consequences would follow from it.

Step-by-step explanation:

The given argument employs the 'attempt to undercut a general principle by questioning the undesirable repercussions it would follow' as the argumentative strategy. The reflection upon consequences associated with the principle of 'rewarding people in proportion their effort' by stating that 'people having the least skill or natural aptitude for a particular job would be the ones given the most incentive to do it' helps in convincing the audience logically about another view of this principle and win the argument. Thus, option D is the correct answer.