Essayist: The existence of a moral

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct65% picked this

   From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of

   Why this is right

   This has the form, "From the assertion that X, the argument concludes Y", so we would want to check on whether X matches evidence and Y matches conclusion. Did the evidence contain an assertion that something is necessary to a moral order? Yes, the first sentence says that a moral order requires "human souls being immortal". Does the conclusion act like "human souls being immortal" is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized? The conclusion acts like "human souls being immortal" is sufficient to prove that "the bad will be punished". Was "the bad will be punished" an element of the moral order? Yes! The first sentence defines "moral order" as something that includes the element of the bad being punished. Since this answer descriptively matches and seems to describe the funky conditional reversal we spotted, this looks good.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   65%
2. B

   Trap5% picked this

   The argument takes mere beliefs to be

   Not Opinion vs. Fact Bad Evidence Match This answer describes a semi-famous Flaw we call Opinion vs. Fact, which is when the author treats opinion as fact. That would feel like this: Ben thinks that Marcy's drawing is political. Since no political drawings are allowed in the Spring Fair, Marcy's drawing won't be allowed in the Spring Fair. That argument is flawed by treating Ben's opinion as though it's a fact. This argument we read has nothing like that. The 2nd sentence talks about different belief systems, but the author never establishes reincarnation or supreme being as facts. The author's conclusion is trying to establish the fact that, "if human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished". Did the premise say, "some people believe that if human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished?" No. The author isn't leaning on any premise about people's beliefs. She's leaning on the premise in the first sentence.

   5%
3. C

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match12% picked this

   From the claim that the immortality of human souls implies that there is a moral order in the universe, the argument concludes that there

   This has the form, "From the claim that X, the argument concludes Y", so we would want to check on whether X matches evidence and Y matches conclusion. Did the evidence claim that "the immortality of human souls implies a moral order in the universe"? No. The evidence said the converse. "The existence of a moral order implies the immortality of human souls". We could stop reading there, since that's grounds for elimination. But the conclusion half of this answer also doesn't match. According to this answer, the conclusion says that "a moral order implies that human souls are immortal", whereas the conclusion actually says that "human souls being immortal implies that the bad will be punished".

   12%
4. D

   Out of Scope: treats as same4% picked this

   The argument treats two fundamentally different conceptions of a moral order as

   The author does not consider karma/reincarnation to be the same as supreme being who metes out justice. The author is introducing those as variations on the idea of a moral order. But the conclusion acknowledges their distinctiveness by saying "however you want to represent a moral order ... whether it's the reincarnation way or the supreme being way ... my conclusion follows". If by "essentially the same", we're saying the author treats reincarnation and supreme being as essentially the same, because they're both moral orders in which the bad are punished and the good are rewarded, that's fine. We could say, "Yes, that's true, the author did do that. But we don't find anything objectionable about that." We're not complaining about the author's reasoning by saying "he considered these two different belief systems to be similar insofar as they are moral orders in which the bad are punished and good are rewarded".

   4%
5. E

   Not Circular14% picked this

   The argument’s conclusion is presupposed in the definition it gives of

   When we see language like, "the premise restates the conclusion" or "the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion", that means Circular reasoning. We know that Circular Reasoning is almost always wrong, so we would never "guess" it's circular. We'd be safer guessing elsewhere. Had the final sentence really been a restatement of the first sentence, then we'd pick this answer. But the final sentence was a different claim, so it's not circular.

   14%