What is the main idea of the passage?

The stone paradox tests definitions of unlimited power by asking whether its supposed task is coherent or self-contradictory. (The passage moves from the two-answer trap to disputes over logical possibility, voluntary limits, and the meaning of action words.)

Why does the square-circle example support one response?

It suggests that a contradictory description fails to name a possible task rather than naming a limit on power. (The example illustrates the view that inability to perform a logical contradiction is not a genuine inability.)

What does “coherent” mean in the final sentence?

logically consistent and meaningfully possible (The conclusion asks whether the two options describe consistent possibilities before treating them as real alternatives.)

What two actions create the original dilemma?

creating the stone and lifting it (The opening poses a conflict between power to create a particular stone and power to lift it.)

The Stone Too Heavy to Lift: Level 5 Reading Comprehension Questions

Can an all-powerful being create a stone so heavy that the being cannot lift it? If the answer is no, there seems to be something the being cannot create. If the answer is yes, there seems to be something the being cannot lift. This is known as the paradox of the stone, a puzzle about omnipotence.

The question appears to force either answer into a limit. Yet its force depends on what “all-powerful” and “can” mean. One response defines omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. On this view, a task whose description contradicts itself is not a genuine task, just as drawing a square circle is not an especially difficult drawing.

That response opens further questions. Is “a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift” truly self-contradictory, or does calling it impossible merely protect the definition? Could a being voluntarily limit future power, and would that count as inability? Different accounts distinguish permanent capacities, temporary choices, and actions inconsistent with a being's nature.

The puzzle therefore does more than ask about weight. It tests whether ordinary action words continue to work when joined to an unlimited capacity. Language developed for agents with limits may produce unstable combinations when all limits are removed. A paradox can be useful without defeating a concept. Here, the stone reveals choices hidden inside a definition. Before deciding which horn of the dilemma wins, a reader must ask whether both horns describe coherent possibilities at all.

Comprehension questions