What is the author's position?
People give to charity with their hearts, and charities appeal to their hearts. A photograph of a single child moves us more than a statistic about thousands. This is understandable, but it has costs. Donations flow to causes that photograph well rather than to those that save the most lives per pound. Some thinkers conclude that we should give only where evidence shows the greatest effect. That goes too far in the other direction: it demands a standard of calculation that most generous people neither have the information nor the inclination to meet, and it risks neglecting local causes that matter to us for good reasons. A fair position is that evidence should inform giving without replacing the personal ties that motivate it.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: E. Evidence should guide giving without displacing the personal connections that motivate it
- Step 1: The author criticises both pure emotion and pure calculation and ends with a balanced position.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Evidence should guide giving without displacing the personal connections that motivate it".
Answer
Evidence should guide giving without displacing the personal connections that motivate it.
Why not the others: Pure emotion and pure calculation are both rejected, and the author does not call for an end to photographs or local giving.
Practise more Charity.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.