Expressivism holds that moral statements don't describe facts but express attitudes—'murder is wrong' expresses disapproval, like 'boo to murder!' The Frege-Geach problem challenges this: in 'if murder is wrong, then assisting murder is wrong,' the antecedent doesn't express disapproval (conditionals don't endorse their antecedents), yet must mean the same as 'murder is wrong' used standalone. How can expression-meaning change based on embedding? Expressivists have developed sophisticated semantics to address this.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
theories of meaning may face challenges when explaining how expressions function in different grammatical contexts
the Frege-Geach problem has been universally ignored by expressivists
conditionals always express approval of their antecedents
moral statements have only one possible interpretation
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. The problem is how meaning is preserved across grammatical contexts.
- Context clues: Standalone use vs. conditional embedding creates a problem for expressivism.
- Meaning: How expressions function differently in different contexts challenges meaning theories.
- Verify: "Sophisticated semantics" were developed to address context-variation.
💡 Strategy: When embedding in different contexts creates problems, infer context-sensitivity as a theoretical challenge.
Choice B is incorrect because expressivists "have developed sophisticated semantics" to address it. Choice C is incorrect because conditionals "don't endorse their antecedents." Choice D is incorrect because the whole problem is about how interpretations might vary.