How Do i explain(and what is the rule) for the rhetorical question “Do we…” as in “Do we treat others better when they resemble us?”
In this case We is not a bunch of people, but a single rhetorical person, and is very similar to asking “Do you…?”
Also, what is the rule for Do vs. Does?
I’m a native speaker, i swear, but I somehow can’t explain these things.
I would imagine the ‘we’ in that question can be replaced with ‘people’ (or is in actuality short for ‘we as people’, but they may not understand ‘we as people’). In Chinese where we would say ‘you’ or ‘we’ they often say ‘people’, so it should make sense to them.
I don’t think it’s a rhetorical question though, a rhetorical question has no answer. That question should be a philosophical question, surely.
[quote=“danger”]
I’m a native speaker, i swear, but I somehow can’t explain these things.[/quote]
Does is used with third person singular subjects.
There is nothing in the grammar of the question that makes it rhetorical.
What makes it rhetorical is how it is used, e.g., as the topic sentence of a paragraph.
I guess there are several ways the question could be interpreted.
(1) Does an individual person treat another person differently when the other person resembles the first person individually?
E.g. Would I treat you favourably if I perceived you to be a self-indulgent person like myself, or less favourably if you seem a more restrained type?
(2) Do we collectively treat other groups differently depending on whether or not they resemble us at a societal level?
E.g., Do Canadians treat Australians differently than they do Americans? (Interpret this example as you like.) 
(3) Does a person treat others differently at an individual level when the other person resembles the norms of the first person’s society?
E.g., As a typical Australian, would I treat you differently if I perceived you as uncultured?
All of these could be valid interpretations of “Do we treat others better when they resemble us?”
So, if you want to isolate just one of the possible interpretations, I suppose you should just refine your question.
Don’t use “we” or “us” (and don’t bother trying to explain them.)
Apologies if I have complicated the issue unnecessarily.
Sorry, i meant how do you explain the Grammar of “do we” . I understand the question perfectly but I honestly don’t understand the grammar.
There doesn’t really seem to be any grammar issue. What don’t you understand? tsukinodeynatsu explained it perfectly in the second post I thought.
I think what might be confusing you, or at least is causing you to overthink this, is the fact that you can include or exclude the listener. In questions like the one you posted, “we” always includes the listener and for that matter all people. It is not the grammar that is confusing you, but rather the usage of “we”
In a sense it is similar to using “you” or “one” as indefinite pronouns.
A rhetorical question has an implied answer in the question, but often without context it is difficult to see it. I do find it hard though to imagine a context where the posted question could be rhetorical.
The exact question wasn’t the example i gave, it was a different essay prompt:
“Do we learn more from our failures or our successes?”
My student misinterpreted the question as asking “Does society learn more from it’s failures or successes?”, and he answered that society learns more from its failures than it does from its successes, when the question is really asking about the individual.
He was confused because “we”, “our” are all plural, but actually the question should be answered for a single person(the listener)
There really needs to be a delete post button on this board.
[quote=“danger”]The exact question wasn’t the example i gave, it was a different essay prompt:
“Do we learn more from our failures or our successes?”
My student misinterpreted the question as asking “Does society learn more from it’s failures or successes?”, and he answered that society learns more from its failures than it does from its successes, when the question is really asking about the individual.
He was confused because “we”, “our” are all plural, but actually the question should be answered for a single person(the listener)[/quote]
I don’t think your student was confused or that he misinterpreted your question, because it is impossible to know that your question is about the individual, unless you spell that out. 
Thinking about it on the run, I get confused a bit with the positive negative myself. If I am wrong. please correct me.
We don’t have any food. Do we?
You can’t swim. Can you?
He is tall. Isn’t he?
She isn’t fat. Is she?
We are very strong. Aren’t we?
I’m afraid I’m with Yuli on this one. The question can be answered by referring to society as a whole or to the individual. I would actually prefer an answer that mentions both.
I went to a very interesting seminar by a math teacher who said that students often lose points in tests because they misinterpret the question. He then continued by saying that this is because very often the questions are poorly worded. No offense to danger but I think this is one such an example.
[quote=“heimuoshu”]I’m afraid I’m with Yuli on this one. The question can be answered by referring to society as a whole or to the individual. I would actually prefer an answer that mentions both.
I went to a very interesting seminar by a math teacher who said that students often lose points in tests because they misinterpret the question. He then continued by saying that this is because very often the questions are poorly worded. No offense to danger but I think this is one such an example.[/quote]
It’s an SAT prompt from an SAT prep book, with a quote preceding it. If you read the quote(and understand SAT style essay prompts) you will see that clearly the question is about the individual. But you guys are right, a lot of times if you just read the essay prompt question like in this case, it is not extremely clear what is being asked.
But thanks for everyone’s input. I’ll make sure the student reads the quote along with the prompt in the future.
[quote=“danger”]How Do i explain(and what is the rule) for the rhetorical question “Do we…” as in “Do we treat others better when they resemble us?”
In this case We is not a bunch of people, but a single rhetorical person, and is very similar to asking “Do you…?”
Also, what is the rule for Do vs. Does?
I’m a native speaker, i swear, but I somehow can’t explain these things.[/quote]
A rhetorical question would be “Are you stupid or what?”
This could be a problem about clusivity. Some languages (supposedly including Mandarin) have two distinct words for we/us. The first is just for an isolated group that does not include the listener (It’s just me and them. / It’s exclusive.), while other includes the speaker (It’s me, them, and you, too. / It’s inclusive.)
Thus, it’s not that we sometimes translates to people, but that we English speakers don’t disambiguate the inclusive and exclusive senses.
Here’s a link because I’m too lazy to type more on this matter, but maybe that can explain why you might label it a “grammatical issue”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity
Ehopi, you’re exactly right. that’s exactly the concept that i was trying to communicate.
For the record, I do know the difference between hypothetical and rhetorical questions, I was just having a brain fart when i wrote the post.
[quote=“ehophi”]This could be a problem about clusivity. Some languages (supposedly including Mandarin) have two distinct words for we/us. The first is just for an isolated group that does not include the listener (It’s just me and them. / It’s exclusive.), while other includes the speaker (It’s me, them, and you, too. / It’s inclusive.)
Thus, it’s not that we sometimes translates to people, but that we English speakers don’t disambiguate the inclusive and exclusive senses.
Here’s a link because I’m too lazy to type more on this matter, but maybe that can explain why you might label it a “grammatical issue”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity[/quote]
I would extend this even further:
Do/Can we use language (and its grammar) to communicate more subtle aspects of Clusivity?
Clusivity is (sometimes) about the individual and sometimes about society (or authority).
For example:
A: Teacher asks, “Do we need to do our homework?”
B: Teacher asks, “Do you need to do your homework?”
The difference between A and B is meaningful, in some situations. Context and situation will help to complete understanding.
[quote=“IYouThem”][quote=“ehophi”]This could be a problem about clusivity. Some languages (supposedly including Mandarin) have two distinct words for we/us. The first is just for an isolated group that does not include the listener (It’s just me and them. / It’s exclusive.), while other includes the speaker (It’s me, them, and you, too. / It’s inclusive.)
Thus, it’s not that we sometimes translates to people, but that we English speakers don’t disambiguate the inclusive and exclusive senses.
Here’s a link because I’m too lazy to type more on this matter, but maybe that can explain why you might label it a “grammatical issue”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity[/quote]
I would extend this even further:
Do/Can we use language (and its grammar) to communicate more subtle aspects of Clusivity?
Clusivity is (sometimes) about the individual and sometimes about society (or authority).
For example:
A: Teacher asks, “Do we need to do our homework?”
B: Teacher asks, “Do you need to do your homework?”
The difference between A and B is meaningful, in some situations. Context and situation will help to complete understanding.[/quote]
Clusivity strictly covers the referents of a first-person plural pronouns. I think that your example A hints toward our use of the “present tense” to indicate two distinct things. One is about present actions, and the other is about universal statements or statements which occur with a regular frequency (e.g. “Do we (currently) need to do our homework?”) vs. “Do we need to do our homework (in general)?”) The latter cases generally call for an inclusive we/us, but the former would make no sense if a teacher said it (since he doesn’t have his own homework).
The second example cannot be about clusivity, but is a matter about the singular or plural scope of the pronoun you, which is also not differentiated with separate phonemes or lexemes in English.