The view that every person

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct73% picked this

   infers merely from the fact of someone's holding a belief that he or she believes an

   Why this is right

   The author shows how "democracy is futile" is a logical consequence (implication) of the belief that "people are only concerned about themselves". But the author can't conclude with certainty that anyone who has that latter belief knows / understand / believes all the logical consequences of that belief.

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

   73%
2. B

   Trap3% picked this

   infers that because something is true of a group of people, it is true of each individual

   Bad Premise Match / Not "Whole to Part" The conclusion is saying something is true of "each social scientist who believe X", but the premise doesn't say "something is true of the entire group of social scientists who believe X".

   3%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match18% picked this

   infers that because something is true of each individual person belonging to a group, it is true of

   This answer describes the famous Part vs. Whole flaw, so if we are familiar with that flaw, we might simply look at this argument and say, "No, that was definitely not a Part to Whole move". Otherwise, we'd see that this answer is structured, infers that because X .... Y That means that X should match the Evidence and Y should match the Conclusion. Does the Evidence have a claim that says "something is true of each individual person belonging to a group"? Nope. This is the evidence: 1. the view that "we're all consumed with self-interest" implies that it's impossible to have government by consent 2. Democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent. Neither one of those claims is saying that "something is true of each individual person belonging to a group". Since the evidence part of this answer doesn't match the actual evidence, it can't be correct. The conclusion half of this answer is also struggling, because saying that "social scientists who believe X evidently also believe Y" is not saying that something is true of a group as a whole. This answer is describing an argument that would sound like this: "Each cheerleader on the squad has too little money to afford to print a new banner. Thus, the cheerleading squad has too little money to afford to print a new banner." Or to make it sound slightly more like this argument, "Each social theorist on the committee believes that aspiring to democracy is futile. Therefore, the committee believes that aspiring to democracy is futile."

   18%
4. D

   Not "Ad Hominem"2% picked this

   attempts to discredit a theory by discrediting those who espouse

   The author isn't discrediting anyone. We may think that democracy is so worth fighting for that this paragraph is a critique, but that's our evaluative filter, not the speaker's. This author can be interpreted as neutrally, dispassionately laying out the connections between ideas and saying that "if you believe X, you believe Z". There's nothing accusatory about it.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match4% picked this

   fails to consider that, even if an argument's conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that

   This objection is targeting an argument that said, "Charlie concluded X, because he was assuming that Y was true. Since X turned out to be false, it must be that Y was false too." That doesn't match this argument at all. The language of this answer is the reverse of the classic Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, to which we would object, "you're failing to consider that, even if an assumption/premise is false, the conclusion may nonetheless be true."

   4%