All actions are motivated by self-interest,

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Equivocation5% picked this

   The term “self-interest” is allowed to shift in meaning over the course

   This describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, equivocation, in which a term or concept is used two different times to mean two very different things. This answer is almost always wrong. The term "self-interest" was used consistently in this paragraph. It always meant "concerned with benefiting oneself".

   5%
2. B

   Correct70% picked this

   The argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the

   Why this is right

   This answer is structured like, takes evidence showing X to constitute evidence showing Y. We would want X to match the evidence and Y to match the conclusion. Was the evidence showing that something could be true? Yeah, it said that all actions that appear altruistic could really be motivated by self-interest (such as the desire for a reward or other benefit). Is the conclusion acting like it's a true statement to say that "all actions that appear altruistic are really motivated by self-interest"? Yes! Because the author is saying there's no such thing as an altruistic action. All actions are motivated by self-interest. When we tried to argue the Anti-Conclusion ("some actions aren't motivated by self-interest"), we thought of a potential example of an action (holding the door open for someone) that isn't motivated by any self-interest. The author's response to that is, "Yes, but that apparently altruistic action could be described as self-interested". And we are saying back to him what this answer is saying: just because it could be described that way doesn't mean that it's accurate to describe it that way.

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

   70%
3. C

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   The argument does not explain what is meant by “reward” and

   We don't really ever see correct answers on Flaw that are complaining that the author failed to provide a specific measurement, a specific number, a specific definition, the names of the people it alludes to generally. We all know what the English words "reward" and "personal benefit" mean. The author isn't being specific about what those rewards or benefits could be because she doesn't necessarily have any specific reward or benefit in mind (she's being vague to allow for the fact that it could be any number of different potential rewards or benefits). We probably didn't react to this argument by angrily saying, "Heyyyy, what do you mean by reward?"

   1%
4. D

   Out of Scope24% picked this

   The argument ignores the possibility that what is taken to be necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation actually suffices to show

   Out of Scope: necessary to be a motivation This answer is using language that sounds like the #1 Famous Flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional logic premise and then uses that rule in an illegally reversed or negated fashion to arrive at the conclusion. This argument's 2nd claim could be construed as a conditional premise: Action appears ? could be describe in altruistic terms of self-interest But the argument doesn't proceed to say, "Action X could be described in terms of self-interest. Therefore, action X must appear to be altruistic" (that would be an illegal reversal). Nor does it say, "Action X did not appear altruistic. Thus, action X cannot be described in terms of self-interest" (illegal negation). So we know it's not committing a Nec vs. Suff error. The answer uses fails to consider / ignores the possibility, so we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we say, "hey, author -- what you think is necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation is really sufficient"? Does the author think that something is necessary for self-interest to be a motivation? No, there's nothing that says "For an action to be motivated by self-interest, it must be true that ." Since this description doesn't apply to anything in the argument, this can't be a valid objection.

   24%
5. E

   Out of Scope: emotional content0% picked this

   The argument depends for its appeal only on the emotional content of

   This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Inappropriate Appeal (to Emotion), in which the author tries to persuade us not through facts and logic but through pity / fear / sympathy. The example cited seems to have almost no emotional content, and the author certainly isn't depending solely on the emotional content of the example.

   0%