Read "What makes good people do bad things?", by MELISSA DITTMANN
Which statement best supports Zimbardo’s belief that individuals aren’t inherently “good” or “evil”?
A. “‘Any of us can move across it... I argue that we all have the capacity for love and evil — to be Mother Theresa, to be Hitler or Saddam Hussein.’” ( Paragraph 3)
B. “In one condition, they overheard an assistant calling the other students ‘animals’ and in another condition, ‘nice.’” ( Paragraph 8)
C. “The same social psychological processes… that acted in the Stanford Prison Experiment were at play at Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo argued.” ( Paragraph 16)
D. “As such, the Abu Ghraib soldiers' mental state… may have further contributed to their ‘evil’ actions, he noted.” ( Paragraph 18)
Answer: A. “‘Any of us can move across it... I argue that we all have the capacity for love and evil — to be Mother Theresa, to be Hitler or Saddam Hussein.’” ( Paragraph 3)
Explanation:
Zimbardo posits that the distinction between good and evil is not fixed, suggesting no one is born strictly into either category. Rather, everyone has the potential to traverse this boundary, particularly when influenced by specific situations. For instance, the mindset of the soldiers, combined with insufficient oversight and accountability, was involved in the mistreatment of an Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib.
The correct answer is D. This is due to her rummaging through Mama's belongings without consent and not considering Mama's potential reaction.
The choice that most accurately represents the argument of Thoreau is the third option. It effectively uses his personal experience of civil disobedience to establish credibility. I hope my response is helpful. God bless, and have a great day!
Answer:
While I was exploring New York, I encountered Amir, who resides there.
Explanation:
Answer:
Squealer's role serves as a satire of a gullible supporter of a dishonest leader.
He employs reversal to illustrate that dictators violate their own declared principles.
Explanation:
George Orwell's Animal Farm presents an allegorical tale reflecting the dynamics of human society, particularly that of the Russian government under Stalin’s oppressive rule. The narrative portrays how individuals overthrow their leaders in pursuit of change, only to find themselves ensnared by a similar tyranny.
In a segment from Chapter 5, the narrative details the strategy for reconstructing the windmill, revealing the cunning tactics of Napoleon, the leader who manipulates the farm’s animals. They had revolted against their human oppressors expecting authentic democracy, which ultimately proved to be illusory. Napoleon rises to power, assuming that he is the legitimate authority over all animals. Squealer particularly exemplifies a naive supporter of a corrupt leader, a dictator who disregards his own rules while demanding that others follow them.
