Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct60% picked this

   provide counterexamples to refute a premise on which a particular conclusion

   Why this is right

   Tough language to parse here. Here's a color coded version of how stuff matches up: Other people have thought to themselves (erroneously, according to our author) ... "Only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules. Therefore, animals do not have rights." Their conclusion "animals do not have rights" is based on their premise that "only humans can obey moral rules". Our author is providing counterexamples to refute that premise. Wolves, foxes, and dogs appear to follow a moral rule that "if your adversary demonstrates submission, then you shouldn't continue to attack them".

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

   60%
2. B

   Too Strong: "all animals"10% picked this

   establish inductively that all animals possess some form

   The author doesn't need to and isn't trying to establish that all animals possess morality, just that at least some non-human animals possess morality.

   10%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match13% picked this

   cast doubt on the principle that being capable of obeying moral rules is a necessary

   The author doesn't attack the legitimacy of the principle. He might accept that you can't have rights unless you're capable of obeying moral rules. He's only attacking people who might be thinking that "only humans are capable of obeying moral rules", by providing examples of non-humans that seem to be obeying moral rules.

   13%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion + Premise Match16% picked this

   establish a claim by showing that the denial of that claim entails

   Did this answer choice read the same paragraph about wolves that we did? The evidence didn't sound anything like "were we to deny this claim, we would be contradicting ourselves"; it sounded like "wolves would exile a dude if he broke the bare throat rule".

   16%
5. E

   Opposite1% picked this

   provide evidence suggesting that the concept of morality is often applied

   The author is suggesting that morality is being applied too narrowly. He's objecting to people who narrowly think that only humans are capable of following moral rules. He's suggesting that concept should be applied more broadly, since wolves/dogs/foxes seem to obey a moral rule.

   1%