Indeed, who could argue that it isn't a frivolous liability ??

Question

hey guys,

i am reading this article on NY times abt 1000HP new luxury car that has extreme technological features..
Author makes a statement - Indeed, who could argue that it isn't a frivolous liability ?? - in article.
This sentence essentially means that "this is a frivolous liability", correct ? If that's correct, then it doesn't make
any sense. I guess author wanted to say "it isn't frivolous liability"..

Please read through the article.. The statement appears in second page..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/automobiles/25AUTO.html?8dpc

thanks,
Djkstra

Nona the brit · Accepted Answer

I didn't read through the article but I think you are right - the author means that the car is a frivolous liability. This would mean that the car is expensive and has unnecessary features, is a bit of an indulgence, a luxury item (frivolous) and the liability probably refers to either the expense of running it or that there will be lots of problems to keep sorting out (possibly all those techno features).

CalifJim · Answer

"Indeed, who could argue that it isn't a frivolous liability?"
This sentence essentially means that "this is a frivolous liability", correct ?
If that's correct, then it doesn't make any sense. I guess author wanted to say "it isn't frivolous liability"

No. Not correct. It makes sense. The author wanted to say "this is a frivolous liability".

"to argue that" means "to argue in favor of the proposition that".
"who could ...?" is a rhetorical question; the assumption is that the answer is "Nobody".

So the sentence means:

Nobody could argue in favor of the proposition that it isn't a frivolous liablility.

which means

It must be a frivolous liability (because nobody can show that it isn't a frivolous liability).

CJ

Indeed, who could argue that it isn't a frivolous liability ??

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions