Philosopher: It is absurd to

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match8% picked this

   undermining a concept by showing that its acceptance would violate a

   The author's conclusion is undermining a concept. What is that concept? you're morally obligated to act naturally Does the author ever say that if we accepted that "we are all morally obligated to act naturally" that this would violate a law of nature? No. The author brought up violating laws of nature when she was interpreting "act naturally" to mean "don't violate a law of nature".

   8%
2. B

   Correct59% picked this

   stating the definition of a key term of

   Why this is right

   Yes, this happens (which is our only metric of right / wrong). The author states the definition of "an unnatural action". She says, "an unnatural action is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly."

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

   59%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   using statistical findings to dispute a

   The author is trying to dispute a claim, the claim that "we're morally obligated to act naturally". Does she ever discuss any statistical findings in the evidence? Heck no.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match30% picked this

   undermining a claim by showing that the claim

   The author is undermining a claim, the claim that "we're morally obligated to act naturally". Does the author do so by showing that the claim is self-contradictory, that by acting naturally we would be doing the opposite of what we're morally obligated to do? No. The author doesn't try to argue that the claim contradicts itself. The author is arguing the claim is absurd, which is synonym for "dumb / meaningless / silly". A self-contradiction is a very specific hard-to-achieve kind of thing. SELF-CONTRADICTION I am not speaking English right now. The Sun always rises in the East, except today it rose in the West

   30%
5. E

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   using empirical evidence to support one definition of a key term of the

   Out of Scope: empirical evidence Out of Scope: support on over another There isn't any empirical evidence discussed (observable measurable data). The author provides two possible definitions for the key term "unnatural action", but she never argues for one over the other. She just shows how whichever definition you choose, you still get an absurd original position. Also, amusingly, we could never pick this answer since it implies (B). Clearly, according to this answer choice, the argument did define a key term, so we couldn't pick (E) and eliminate (B).

   2%