05:03 Jan 24, 2019 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Government / Politics | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Charles Davis Spain Local time: 05:51 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +3 | hypotheses, not prescriptions |
|
hypotheses, not prescriptions Explanation: To paraphrase the first paragraph, the idea is that in the past, whenever people have been capable of doing something terrible, they have done it. Now we've reached the point where a single government, or even a single person, could destroy the world [this is made clear in the following pages of the book]. So will they do so? There are three possibilities: 1. People will change: instead of doing it, as they always have before, they will refrain from doing it. (This is unlikely: that's what "good luck with that!" means.) 2. Arrangements will change so that they are prevented from doing it (also unlikely). 3. They will do it: boom! Universal destruction. So "is going to change" and "changes" express optimistic possibilities for the future that are regarded as unlikely to happen. It's true that they ought to happen, but that's not what the writer is expressing here. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||