PT117 · S4 · Q7 Since empathy is essential for

Too Strong: usually Out of Scope: detrimental to society Given that the conclusion is a claim about "empathy / civilized society", it's highly dubious that the correct answer would also combine "empathy / civilized society", since correct answers are trying to bridge a gap between evidence and conclusion, not sort out the internal logic of the conclusion itself. The author is talking about whether or not civilized society could exist, in all-or-nothing terms. This answer is talking about "actions detrimental to society", which means "civilized society exists, but is harmed in some way". That is totally out of scope. We don't talk about actions harming society at all. Our author's argument is saying that, "in order to have civilized society, we'll have to sometimes be willing to ignore our own welfare for the sake of others, and that requires us having empathy". Our author believes that a failure to empathize would mean that people aren't going to follow moral codes that sometimes ask them to ignore their own welfare for the sake of others. He thinks that sometimes we need to ignore our welfare for the sake of others, in order to have civilized society, but he doesn't need to assume that when we're unwilling to ignore our own welfare it usually (in more than 51% of cases) harms society.

Our author is assuming that if people aren't willing to ? won't have civilized sometimes ignore own society welfare for others This answer is just performing the Illegal Light switch and saying, if people are willing ? will have civilized to sometimes ignore society This argument is about what's required for civilized society. This answer choice is about what's sufficient to guarantee civilized society.

This feels tempting. If civilized societies exist, then we know our author believes that they have empathy (that's her conclusion). But do we know that she believes that they have moral codes w/ a requirement that people disregard their own welfare to help others? The author talked about moral codes that sometimes require us to disregard our welfare. It's not clear that this answer is using that same moderate language. If there was a moral code that required that "people disregard their own welfare in order to help others", does that mean sometimes disregard? always disregard? It seems like the moral code requirement part of this answer is expressed too strongly. The other questionable aspect of this argument is that our author doesn't really commit to the idea that any civilized society has ever existed. If I conclude, "life on Mars could not exist without liquid water", am I assuming that "Liquid water has at some point arisen near some life forms on Mars"? Not necessarily. I might be just stating something that is a true requirement for life on Mars, even if that requirement has never actually been met. So the fact that the argument is more abstract and hypothetical, whereas this answer is real world / factual makes it feel like it goes beyond what the author talked about.

The author only needs for empathetic people to sometimes be willing to ignore their own welfare for the sake of others. It doesn't need to be more than 50% of the time.