Philosopher: People are not intellectually

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   no one can ever be happy living in a society in which she or he is not intellectually

   Why this is right

   This is a very strong idea, which is unnerving, but when Necessary Assumption gives us a conditional answer, we think about how it looks as an If / Then move, and compare that to the author's reasoning. No one can ever be B in a place like A That could be represented as, "If you're in A, you're not B", or "If you're B, you're not in A" "If you're in a society where you're not intellectually well suited to live, then you can never be happy". That does seem to match the author's reasoning. She went from saying "people aren't intellectually suited in big bureaucracies", to thinking, "people won't be happy in big bureaucracies", and thus concluding, "The only place we have a chance to be happy is in smaller political units."

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

   72%
2. B

   Too Strong: primary purpose2% picked this

   the primary purpose of small political units such as villages is to

   The author doesn't need to commit to the #1 purpose of small political units. It's irrelevant to the argument. The author only cares about small political units insofar as it is a type of society in which people might be more intellectually well suited to live, and thus might be more likely to find elusive happiness. The fact that happiness might be found in such a village doesn't mean that the author thinks the #1 purpose of the village is to make people happy.

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: all5% picked this

   all societies that are plagued by excessive bureaucracy

   The author used the words large and bureaucratic in the same sentence to describe the noun "societies". That doesn't mean she's assuming a 100% universal connection between bureaucracy and large-ness. If we negated this and said, "There is at least one small society that is plagued by excessive bureaucracy", would that weaken the argument? No, that has no effect. As a reasoning move, this answer looks like this: plagued by excessive bureaucracy ? large This doesn't match the move from Premise to Conclusion. It's just linking together language from within the Premise.

   5%
4. D

   Too Strong: anyone19% picked this

   anyone who lives in a village or other small political unit that is not excessively

   The author's conclusion is not promising happiness, if we were to go to small political unit like a village. She just says, "If there's any place to find happiness, it's there". If we say, "The beers we have, if any, are in the downstairs fridge", then we haven't promised any beer. Similarly, this author hasn't promised any happiness. She just think we have a chance of finding it in a village. As a reasoning move, this answer looks like this: live in small political not-too-bureaucratic ? can be happy This doesn't match the move from Premise to Conclusion. It's just linking together wording from within the Conclusion.

   19%
5. E

   Too Strong2% picked this

   everyone is willing to live in villages or other small

   Too Strong: everyone Out of Scope: willing Nothing in the argument is dealing with people's willingness to live in any of these places. If we negate this and say, "There is at least on person who isn't willing to live in a village or other small political unit", that won't hurt the argument. The author will just be like, "Cool. Well that person won't be happy, because they're not intellectually suited to where they're choosing to live."

   2%