Researcher: The role of chemicals

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: whatever / purely6% picked this

   Whatever does not have a chemical explanation must have a purely

   This argument was only about sexual behavior. It did seem like the author was saying that for humans, sexual behavior should be explained psychologically, not chemically. But he didn't necessarily assume that every single thing in the universe that doesn't have a chemical explanation must be purely psychological. We can ask ourselves if he ever made this move: from -- X doesn't have a chemical explanation, to -- X must have purely psychological explanation Not really. It was more like the author was thinking, "whatever has an explanation that is influenced by free will must have a purely psychological one".

   6%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   Voluntary action cannot have a chemical

   Why this is right

   Does the author ever make this move? voluntary action ? ~chemical explanation Yes, in the second to last sentence, he's building a contrast between animals and humans: Animals Humans sex behaviors are sex behaviors are voluntary involuntary, (by virtue of free will), thus clear sign thus clear sign of of chemical control psychological control This answer is resisting that move. The author is Assuming a Difference between involuntary and voluntary actions. If we negate this answer, it attacks that assumption. If voluntary actions can also have a chemical explanation, then maybe pheromones explain how we go about making free will decisions, in which they're still a meaningful part of the human species' life, in which case they're not just a vestige of the past. This answer is tough because it seems contradictory to say that a voluntary action could be controlled by chemicals. But they don't say "controlled", they say "explained", and I think that's intended to mean more like "Why did I choose to ask Jill on a date? Because she just smelled really good when I got near her. And now I'm President!" That's an example of how pheromones would explain why someone with free will made a certain choice.

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

   68%
3. C

   Too Strong: only9% picked this

   Free will can be found only

   The argument didn't make a categorical divide between humans and all other animals in terms of free will. The first sentence only talks about some animals having pheromones determine their sexual behavior. When we're told that humans have free will, we're not told it's a unique capacity we have. The author may well believe that dolphins have free will as well. That wouldn't hurt anything in the argument.

   9%
4. D

   Too Strong9% picked this

   Voluntary action cannot have an evolutionary

   Did the author make a move like this? action is ? not explained voluntary by evolution No. The only time the author brought up evolution was to say that chemical pheromones were part of how we evolved but are no longer important to us (perhaps because we evolved free will).

   9%
5. E

   Opposite, if anything8% picked this

   There is a psychological explanation for the continuing presence of pheromones

   I don't really even know how to classify this answer because it seems to just be fabricating a brand new meaning by putting words from the paragraph in a new order. The author's explanation for the continuing presence of pheromones in humans is that it's a vestige of our evolutionary past (that's not a psychological explanation). As fetuses, we still have a stage where we have vestigial tail (some are even born with a small tail). That stage of development still exists as a relic of our evolutionary history. The author is suggesting something similar for pheromones.

   8%