Why does the author say that the evidence-only position 'goes too far in the other direction'?
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. Because it expects standards of calculation that most donors cannot meet and may neglect local causes
- Step 1: The passage says it demands a standard of calculation most people cannot meet and risks neglecting local causes.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Because it expects standards of calculation that most donors cannot meet and may neglect local causes".
Answer
Because it expects standards of calculation that most donors cannot meet and may neglect local causes.
Why not the others: The author does not mention affordability, ignoring effects, unreliable evidence or a ban.
Practise more Charity.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.