The notion that one might

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match13% picked this

   A representative of the law, such as a judge or a police officer, ought not to commit crimes. For if representatives of the law

   The conclusion of this argument is normative. It's saying that "someone who is A ought / should not do B." Our original conclusion was just saying that a claim was self-contradicting. There wasn't any moral judging in it. If the conclusion doesn't match the type and strength of the original conclusion, it's not worth reading (on a first pass, at least).

   13%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   One cannot intend to spill a glass of water accidentally. Spilling it accidentally means that the act will

   Why this is right

   This argument is concluding that "intentionally spilling a glass" contradicts the idea of "spilling a class accidentally". So the evidence should show that doing one is the opposite of the doing the other, and that's what is does. Prem: If A, then B spill accidentally ? unintentional intentional ? spill accidentally. Conc: The notion that one might be ~B while being A is incoherent. The notion that one might be intentional while spilling accidentally is incoherent. The original conclusion could have been rephrased, "You cannot behave irrationally in the serve of a sufficiently worthy end". Since the author is arguing that X and Y are contradictory, it can be expressed as "You can't be X while you're doing Y", or vice versa.

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

   76%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match9% picked this

   One cannot live the good life and be unhappy. If one’s own neighbors see that one is unhappy, then they will see that one

   This argument is concluding a contradiction between "living the good life" and "being unhappy". So the evidence should say, "If you're living the good life, you're happy" or "If you're unhappy, then you're not living the good life." Instead, it talks about whether or not "our neighbors see that one is unhappy" and whether "our neighbors see that we are living the good life or not".

   9%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   Doctors cannot perform self-diagnosis, for they cannot objectively evaluate their own symptoms, and thus will

   This argument is concluding a contradiction between "being a doctor" and "performing a self-diagnosis". So the evidence should say, "If you're a doctor, you can't self-diagnose" or "If you're self-diagnosing, then you're not a doctor". Instead, it just says that doctors aren't objective about themselves and will be practicing poor medicine.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   One ought not to have both a cat and a goldfish. The goldfish is the natural prey of the cat, so it is unethical

   The conclusion of this argument is normative. It's saying that "we ought / should not do B." Our original conclusion was just saying that a claim was self-contradicting. There wasn't any moral judging in it. If the conclusion doesn't match the type and strength of the original conclusion, it's not worth reading (on a first pass, at least).

   1%