Verbal Ability - Comprehension - Discussion

There is a contradiction in the text and the question : which is say - ''if a piece of matter violates nature's law, it is not punished because" - Therefore,

There is no superior being to enforce the law of nature (B) is correct answer because Law of nature it's not "If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished".

In a paragraph such a pleasure of nature rule and (D) option is a the facts have not been correctly stated by law not is show violates and superiority so I think and I should be Answer option (B).

Correct Answer is [B].

There is no superior being to enforce the law of nature.

"If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished. On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly started" mind this statement and question is asked in contrarily that is if sth does not obey this means if sth goes against to nature it get punished but not, in contrast, this means if nature itself do wrong that is right only why because there is no superior being to enforce the law of nature.

The following sentences are enlightening.

"This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver. If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished".

Bear in mind that these statements are false statements, meaning to say, the law (of nature) has NO GIVER and If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is NOT punished. These statements are related. It is NOT punished because the law has NO GIVER. No one will enforce the law of nature.

"This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver. If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished".

Bear in mind that these statements are false statements, meaning to say, the law (of nature) has NO GIVER and If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is NOT punished. These statements are related. It is NOT punished because the law has NO GIVER. No one will enforce the law of nature.

They're asking why the law breaker is not punished. The answer is in the second line which says 'This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver' which means actually there is no law maker and that is why we must not call it a law but a statement of acts. While everyone is focussing on the last line for the answer, look up the full para for the possible answers in case of comprehension passages.

@Sundar

You are right. Since in the last line it stated that," On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly started. ". it tells us that there is a possibility that it could has been started correctly.

It means that there is no one to control these laws. Hence option (B) is correct.

Just tell me one thing-what's this second last line referring-"If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature, it is punished. "But the question is asking-"If a piece of matter violates (i.e. Does not obey), it is not punished? What's this now? I'm a bit confused. Why opposite statement in the question?

The correct option is D. It simply means that the facts have not been correctly stated by law.

The passage states that the laws of nature are not commands but descriptions of observed uniformities. If something is not aligned with these laws, then simply the descriptions are incorrect or incomplete.

There is a contradiction in the text and the question: which is, the text says--if a piece of matter doesn't obey the law of nature 'it is punshed'. Therefore, the words ón the contrary' cannot be the determining factor. Hence, D is correct.

The answer is B because in para it is stated that "law implies lawgiver" and if someone doesn't obey the law and it is unpunished that means that there is no one to enforce the law (or there isn't a lawgiver of nature).