Question

. . . Rousseau became enamoured of solitude, and, being at the same time an optimist, he labours with uncommon eloquence to prove that man was naturally a solitary animal. Misled by his respect for the goodness of God, who certainly?—for what man of sense and feeling can doubt it!?—gave life only to communicate happiness, he considers evil as positive, and the work of man; not aware that he was exalting one attribute at the expense of another, equally necessary to divine perfection.
Reared on a false hypothesis, his arguments in favour of a state of nature are plausible, but unsound. I say unsound; for to assert that a state of nature is preferable to civilization in all its possible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom; and the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things right, and that evil has been introduced by the creature whom he formed, knowing what he formed, is as unphilosophical as impious.
What is Wollstonecraft’s purpose in citing Rousseau’s theory?
a)to applaud his theory
b)to disprove his theory
c)to agree with his theory
d)to elaborate on his theory

Answer 1

It's difficult, I would say perhaps: [B. To disprove his theory.], but it could be: [D. To elaborate on his theory.] since in both cases he's basically doing one or the other. Though since he comes off as disagreeing with Rousseau's theory or hypothesis, then I would conclude that it would probably be B., I may be wrong though.

Hopefully that helps, have a great rest of your day! ^ ^
{-Ghostgate-}

Answer 2

Answer: b) to disprove his theory.

In this passage, Wollstonecraft is trying to disprove Rousseau's theory. She thinks that Rousseau was misled by his desire for solitude and by his optimism. Therefore, she thinks that this leads him to misjudge what divine perfection truly is, reaching a conclusion that is both unphilosophical and impious.