Question

"Some philosophers believe that a concept which cannot be verified can still be valid because of its inner logic which ennobles it."

In the light of the above statement, decide the status of the statement given below.

Statement: "Every person has certain inherent and inalienable rights which must be protected by Rule of Law."

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Difficult to determine
• D. Both True and False

Hint:

Use only the test in the opening line. It says lack of proof is not a defect if the idea holds together and ennobles, so check the statement for coherence and dignity, not for evidence.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Questions of this shape hand you a yardstick in the first line and a thing to measure in the second. The trap is to reach for your own yardstick. Here the yardstick is: an idea that cannot be proved is still valid if its inner logic ennobles it. So proof is off the table as a test, and coherence plus dignity is on the table instead.

1. True: Measure the statement against the yardstick. Take the unverifiable part first. No instrument detects an inherent right in a human being. Rights are not in the blood or the bones. So the statement sits squarely in the category the philosophers are discussing, and the yardstick refuses to reject it on that ground. Take the inner logic next. Being a person gives you the right; being inalienable means nobody can take it from you; a right nobody can take away still means nothing without a guardian; the guardian must treat everyone alike, and that is precisely the Rule of Law. The chain holds together at every link. Take the ennobling part last. An idea that says no king, no majority and no officer may strip a person of what belongs to them as a human being is the very definition of an ennobling idea. Unverifiable, coherent and ennobling is exactly the combination the opening line calls valid. So the verdict is True.
2. False: To call the statement false, the yardstick would have to throw out ideas that cannot be tested. It was written to do the opposite. It was written to save such ideas. Answering False means reading the opening line backwards.
3. Difficult to determine: This would be the honest answer only if the opening line left us without a test. It does not. It gives a clear two part test, inner logic and ennoblement, and the statement satisfies both, so there is nothing left undecided.
4. Both True and False: A single statement cannot hold both values at once, and the yardstick offers no split verdict. This option is a distractor with nothing behind it.

So option (A) is correct.

Let's summarize:

• Apply only the test the question supplies, never your own.
• The test replaces proof with inner logic and ennoblement.
• Inherent and inalienable rights are unprovable, coherent and dignity raising, so they pass.

The statement is True, which is option (A).