The following text is from a metaethics article.
Error theory holds that moral judgments, while claiming objective truth, are systematically false because there are no objective moral facts. Mackie's "argument from queerness" questioned what moral facts would have to be like—intrinsically motivating, categorically prescriptive—and whether anything in reality could have such properties. Error theorists face the practical question of what to do with moral discourse given its alleged falsity: abolish it, fictionalize it, or continue speaking as if it were true?
Which choice best describes the function of the last sentence?
It provides a complete refutation of error theory.
It introduces practical implications that follow from accepting the theory.
It introduces a new topic about political philosophy.
It summarizes Mackie's argument from queerness.
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. The last sentence introduces practical options (abolish, fictionalize, continue) for those who accept error theory.
- Evidence: The sentence states: "Error theorists face the practical question of what to do with moral discourse... abolish it, fictionalize it, or continue speaking as if it were true?"
- Reasoning: It raises the "now what?" question: if morality is false, what do we do with moral language?
- Conclusion: The function is to introduce practical implications.
💡 Strategy: Look for "practical question of what to do."
Choice A is incorrect because no refutation is given. Choice C is incorrect because the topic continues. Choice D is incorrect because it's about implications, not summary.