Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are:
1. What premises is the author using?
2. What conclusions does the author come to?
3. Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning?
one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine
or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics.
If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that
person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t
expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case,
that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then
what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then
one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each
political “position” must be held to be false relative to the belief one
has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward
for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that
makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble,
of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may
hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid
as a way to determine the rightness of a political position.