Technological innovation rarely serves the

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: impossible premise0% picked this

   contains a premise that cannot possibly

   We might argue that we don't think the premise is accurate, but we wouldn't be able to say it's a logical impossibility.

   0%
2. B

   Too Strong: cannot be20% picked this

   takes for granted that technology beneficial to society as a whole cannot

   Since this says "takes for granted", we can ask ourselves, "Did the author assume this answer?" Our author was definitely assuming that in many / most cases, "commercially viable technology does not serve the interests of society as a whole". But never? They cannot overlap? Was our author assuming something so strong? Check the conclusion — nope, the conclusion is just saying that tech innovation (which aims for commercial viability) rarely overlaps with benefiting society overall.

   20%
3. C

   Not an Objection5% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that actions motivated by a desire for personal gain often do not

   Since this starts with fails to consider, we can ask ourselves, "Would this be an objection?" Did we have actions motivated by a desire for personal gain? Yes, tech innovations are labeled as such. According to this answer choice, "tech innovations often do not result in personal gain". Does that hurt the argument? No, the author never promised or acted like tech innovations always result in personal gain. Our author only has gone out on a limb that tech innovations usually don't result in societal gain.

   5%
4. D

   Correct73% picked this

   takes for granted that an action is unlikely to produce a certain outcome unless it is motivated by a

   Why this is right

   Since this starts with takes for granted we can ask ourselves, "Did this author assume — if an action isn't motivated by a desire to produce an outcome, then that action is unlikely to produce that outcome?" Yeah, that seems fair. (Unless = if it is not the case that) The author was assuming that, if tech innovation isn't motivated by a desire to produce societal benefit, then tech innovation is unlikely to produce the outcome of societal benefit. Whenever we see Necessary Assumption go conditional (unless), we can ask ourselves, "Does this match the move my author made?" They often write these in contrapositive form, so we may need to contrapose to see it better.

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

   73%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   draws a conclusion about the practical consequences of people’s actions on the basis of theoretical views about what people

   Since this answer says that the author "draws a conclusion about X on the basis of Y", we can ask ourselves "does X match the conclusion and Y match the evidence"? The conclusion does seem to be about the practical consequences of people's actions: the action of creating tech innovations rarely has the practical consequence of benefiting society as a whole. But the evidence isn't "theoretical views about what people should / shouldn't do". There is no should / shouldn't language in the evidence, and there are no theoretical views in the evidence. The evidence is just saying a generalization that tech innovators are almost always motivated by personal gain.

   3%