Philosopher: Groups are not

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Role7% picked this

   It is an intermediate conclusion offered as direct support for the

   To test whether something is an Intermediate Conclusion, just ask yourself, "Why should I believe this?" If you can point to any claim in the argument and say, "because, [this claim]", then the claim you were testing was a conclusion. If you can't find a supporting claim, it's not a conclusion. Why should I believe that ... nations do not have consciences? There isn't any premise offered for that.

   7%
2. B

   Correct77% picked this

   It is offered as support for an intermediate conclusion that is in turn offered as direct support for

   Why this is right

   The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences combine to flow into the 1st sentence. - If something doesn't have a conscience or doesn't have agency, then it can't be blamed. - Nations don't have consciences (can't be blamed). - Family are not agents (can't be blamed). Thus - Groups (like nations and families) aren't the sort of thing that can be praised or blamed. Hence - If we're trying to praise a blame a group, we better translate that into praise or blame for individuals.

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

   77%
3. C

   Reversed5% picked this

   It is cited as an implication of the main conclusion drawn

   The main conclusion is an implication of the Intermediate Conclusion, which is an implication of the premises. And the claim we're being asked about is a Premise. The verb "implies" is the same as the → of reasoning. Premise —implies→ Conclusion.

   5%
4. D

   Wrong Role10% picked this

   It is cited as an instance of a general conclusion drawn

   "An instance of a general claim" is the same as an example of a general claim. We did have two general conclusions drawn within the argument: Intermed Conc: groups aren't the sort of entity that can be praised or blamed. An instance of that would sound like "for instance, nations can't be praised or blamed. Families can't be praised or blamed." Main Conc: praise or blame for a group should be translated into statements about individuals. An instance of that would be like, "for instance, if you're trying to praise New Zealand for its handling of COVID, you should really name specific individuals that deserve praise."

   10%
5. E

   Wrong Role1% picked this

   It is the main conclusion drawn in

   The final claim is the main conclusion. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences combine to flow into the 1st sentence. - If something doesn't have a conscience or doesn't have agency, then it can't be blamed. - Nations don't have consciences (can't be blamed). - Family are not agents (can't be blamed). Thus - Groups (like nations and families) aren't the sort of thing that can be praised or blamed. Hence - If we're trying to praise a blame a group, we better translate that into praise or blame for individuals.

   1%