So the preliminary question is this: Why should we think that bosom-burning is a reliable way of determining truth? We can’t use bosom-burning to answer this question, because that would just beg the question (. assume precisely what it is we are trying to determine). The evidence suggests that bosom-burning is affected greatly by the power of suggestion. When Mormons come to the door and suggest bosom-burning as a means of determining whether Mormonism is true, a higher percentage of persons will bosom-burn in the Mormon direction. But when other sects come to the door and use the same method (even if not the same terminology), a higher percentage of person will ‘feel led by God’ to join those other [non-Mormon] sects. All this implies that the method itself is a not a reliable way of determining truth, but is a psychological tool to get people to follow their own feelings while making them believe that it is not their own feelings that they are following but the leading of the Spirit. (They don’t stop to ask, “If this were just my feelings, and not the Spirit, how would I know?” They can’t answer that question, because the method prevents the person using it from discovering his error.)
Here is another example of a simple error of omission that could have been caught if the student had read the essay aloud or given it to a friend to read. The word "of" should be between "calculation" and "the." That one small error makes the entire sentence awkward and confusing. If the instructor has to reread the sentence to try to understand its meaning, the flow of the essay is interrupted. If this happens often enough in the essay, it gives an overall bad impression on what otherwise might be a very good paper in terms of research.
Accompanying the party is Constantine’s German wife Gerda, whom West depicts as a forerunner to Hitler (and whose legacy we can discern in the 1990s horrors of “ethnic cleansing”). Coolly dissecting Gerda’s “ideal programme for making Europe clean and pure and Germanic by coercion and expulsion,” West makes very clear her total rejection of the sort of intolerance for which Gerda stands. In Skopje, West observes Turks, Macedonians, Roma, and Albanians going about their daily routines together, and is entranced. “[I]t’s precisely because there are so many different peoples that Yugoslavia is so interesting,” West explains to the peevish Gerda. “So many of these peoples have remarkable qualities, and it is fascinating to see whether they can be organized into an orderly state.” Gerda responds with contempt: “How can you make an orderly state out of so many peoples? […] They should all be driven out.” Given West’s clearly cosmopolitan sympathies in this passage, it is perverse of her critics to accuse the author of ethnocentric bias.