Question

Read the following excerpt from Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics. There is a tale, “The Ring of Gyges,” that Feldman sometimes tells his economist friends. It comes from Plato’s Republic. A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates—who, like Adam Smith, argued that people are generally good even without enforcement. Glaucon, like Feldman’s economist friends, disagreed. He told of a shepherd named Gyges who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside that wore a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behavior, Gyges proceeded to do woeful things—seduce the queen, murder the king, and so on. Glaucon’s story posed a moral question: could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? Glaucon seemed to think the answer was no. But Paul Feldman sides with Socrates and Adam Smith—for he knows the answer, at least 87 percent of the time, is yes. Compared with Feldman’s argument, the tale of “The Ring of Gyges” is best described as a claim. counterclaim. umbrella statement. logical fallacy.

Answer 1

Answer: B. counterclaim (I think)

Explanation: have a good day :)

Answer 2

A counterclaim is the best way to describe "The Ring of Gyges." As a result, option (b) or (ii) is the proper response.

Why is it a counterclaim?

This is an instance of a counterclaim because it contradicts Feldman's point of view. The "ring of Gyges" is a mystical ring that recounts a story. Anyone who wears this ring is rendered invisible.

Even when a good man wears this ring, the temptation is too much, and he ends up doing horrible things knowing he won't be held accountable, according to the story.

To learn more about Ring of Gyges, refer below

https://brainly.com/question/2502155