Moralist: Immoral actions are those

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   People ignorant of their actions’ consequences cannot be held morally responsible

   Out of Scope: morally responsible Too Strong: cannot The author never discusses moral responsibility, so she her logic isn't committing her to any views on that topic.

   4%
2. B

   Too Strong: only if2% picked this

   An action harms those who perform it only if it also

   Conditional answers should primarily be judged by asking ourselves, "Did the author make this move?" The only move the author made was, "If an immoral action ultimately harms the actor, then the actor must be ignorant of the action's consequences." This is saying, "If an action doesn't harm others, then it can't harm the actor". The author never made any move that resembles this.

   2%
3. C

   Contradicted, if anything Too Strong: only14% picked this

   Only someone with a character defect would knowingly perform actions that

   Did the author make a reasoning move like this? If your action would ? then you have a eventually harm others character defect Definitely not. The author is never concluding that someone has a character defect. In fact, she concludes that people performing immoral actions don't have a character defect causing that behavior.

   14%
4. D

   Correct68% picked this

   Those who, in acting immorally, eventually harm themselves do not intend

   Why this is right

   This has that lovable quality on Necessary Assumption of ruling-out something with the word "not". These answers are the ones that are most ripe for the Negation Test. If we negate this and it turns into a weakening objection, we'll pick it. If it doesn't, we won't. Does it hurt the argument to say, "Yo, author -- people who act immorally and eventually harm themselves because of that do intend that harm"? Sure! It basically refutes the conclusion. (The correct answer, when negated, doesn't need to refute the conclusion. It just needs to weaken. But oh-my-does-this weaken!) The author was saying that immoral actors are doing these actions only through ignorance of the fact that the action will have the consequence of eventually harming them. This answer's negation is saying, "Nope -- they're intentionally harming themselves. They're not ignorant of that consequence. They're aware of it and are seeking it."

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

   68%
5. E

   Too Strong: none11% picked this

   None of those who knowingly harm themselves lack

   This also offers a conditional relationship: If you knowingly ? then you have a harm yourself character defect This doesn't match at all. First of all, the premise isn't about knowingly harming yourself. The immoral action will eventually harm you, but the author thinks you're ignorance of that consequence, not knowingly doing it. Secondly, the conclusion does not say that someone has a character defect. It says that someone is not doing something because of a character defect.

   11%