PT157 S3 Q22 ExplanationPhilosopher: Philosophers usually treat

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Description27% picked this

   It is an example of the phenomenon that the argument seeks

   The argument does seek to explain a phenomenon -- why emotions seem nonrational. But the target statement is not an example of the phenomenon itself. Emotions seeming nonrational is the phenomenon. The target statement is an example of language's limitations, which is the explanation for that phenomenon. This answer confuses the explanandum (emotions seeming nonrational) with the explanans (language being inadequate). The statement about joy illustrates the explanans, not the explanandum.

   27%
2. B

   Wrong Role8% picked this

   It is the main conclusion of

   The main conclusion is that emotion is not nonrational. The target statement -- about one joy being indistinguishable from another in language -- is evidence supporting the general claim about language's limitations, which in turn supports the conclusion. The word "thus" before this statement might suggest it is a conclusion, but "for example" immediately overrides that signal, identifying the statement as an illustration. The conclusion appears earlier in the argument, not at the end.

   8%
3. C

   Correct55% picked this

   It is a specific instance illustrating a general claim, thereby indirectly

   Why this is right

   The target statement illustrates a specific instance of the general claim that emotion-words name only very general kinds of experience. "Joy" is a general word, and there is no language to capture how one joy differs from another -- that is a specific example of language's generality. This general claim about language, in turn, supports the conclusion that emotion is not nonrational but merely appears so because of linguistic limitations. The target statement thus indirectly supports the conclusion by illustrating the evidence that directly supports it.

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

   55%
4. D

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   It is a concession to the view that the argument seeks

   A concession would acknowledge the opposing view's validity. The opposing view is that emotions are nonrational. The target statement -- about language's inability to distinguish joys -- does not concede that emotions are nonrational. Instead, it supports the argument's rebuttal of that view by showing that language is inadequate, which is why emotions merely appear nonrational. The target statement works against the opposing view, not in its favor.

   2%
5. E

   Wrong Role8% picked this

   It is the explanation proposed for the phenomenon the argument seeks

   The explanation proposed for why emotions seem nonrational is that "language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion." That appears in the second sentence. The target statement -- about one joy being indistinguishable from another -- is an example illustrating that explanation, not the explanation itself. This answer confuses the general explanation with the specific illustration. The explanation is the broad claim about language; the target statement is one piece of supporting evidence for that claim.

   8%