Essayist: It is much less difficult

Answer choices

1. A

   Overstretch8% picked this

   No one should be denied the freedom to make lifestyle choices that accord with his

   The conclusion is about the freedom to choose whom you associate with. If we say, as this answer does, "You're free to make your own choices that accord with your beliefs", then we'd have to add some idea that "if you're free to make choices that accord with your beliefs, then you're free to associate with those you want. Even though that last move sounds reasonable, it's not given to us in any of the premises, so we should expect an answer will more explicitly deliver us the payoff of "you're free to associate with those you want".

   8%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   One should associate with at least some people who share many of

   The author is arguing that no one should be denied the freedom to choose their own associates, but this answer is actively encouraging people to associate with certain types of people. The author isn't trying to conclude whom you should associate with; she just wants you to have the freedom to choose that yourself. Since this answer doesn't speak to the "no should be denied the freedom" part of the conclusion, it doesn't justify it much.

   2%
3. C

   Correct69% picked this

   If having a given freedom could make it less difficult for someone to live an enjoyable life, then no one

   Why this is right

   We were looking for something like "no one should be denied the freedom to do something that might possibly let them obtain C", which we could have re-written conditionally like this: if something might let you obtain C, you shouldn't be denied the freedom to do that. The "something" in this argument is "choosing your associates". As we laid out before, the freedom to choose your own associates allows you to pick some people who share your values, which makes it possible to see your lifestyle choices accepted by others, which makes it less difficult to live an enjoyable life. So, according to this rule, "no one should be denied that freedom (of choosing your own associates". This basically proves the wording in the conclusion.

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

   69%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion Match13% picked this

   No one whose enjoyment of life depends, at least in part, on friends and associates who share many of the same personal beliefs should

   The original conclusion would apply to all people. "No one should be denied the freedom to associate with whom they choose". This answer choice has a narrower scope and only applies to the subset of people whose enjoyment of life partially depends on some like-minded friends and associates.

   13%
5. E

   Weak Conclusion Match8% picked this

   One may choose for oneself the people with whom one will associate, if doing so could make it easier

   This is very similar to (C). We do know that choosing who you will associate with can make it easier to live an enjoyable life. So in both answers, we trigger the principle and get to say the outcome. (C) No should be denied the freedom to choose whom they associate with (E) One may choose for themselves which people they want to associate with Which one is more similar to our conclusion? The conclusion was "No one should be denied the freedom to associate with whom they choose". It looks like (C) is a much better match. Another way to think about it --- the original argument is about depriving someone else of their freedom to choose their associates. (C) is a principle discussing whether or not you should prohibit someone else's freedom. This principle isn't aimed at person X, telling them not to deny person Y their freedom. It's aimed at person Y, giving them permission to choose their associates.

   8%