Explanation must be distinguished

Answer choices

1. A

   No Way to Prove No Explanation2% picked this

   When a human action is justified, that action has

   Without thinking too hard about the meaning of this sentence, we can tell this isn't derivable from the paragraph because it offers a conditional rule that has No Explanation on the right side of the arrow. There is no language anywhere in the paragraph that could be used to prove that an action has no explanation. It even says that every human action potentially has an explanation. We were given a conditional rule that had "action justified" as its trigger: Justified ? person has sufficient reasons action for the action In order to then get from that outcome to the outcome shown in this answer choice, we would have to feel good about making this move: person has sufficient ? action has no reasons for action explanation But we weren't given anything that sounds like that move.

   2%
2. B

   No Way to Prove Rational18% picked this

   If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that

   Without thinking too hard about the meaning of this sentence, we can tell this isn't derivable from the paragraph because it offers a conditional rule that has Rational on the right side of the arrow. The only information we have about rational actions comes from the last sentence, where Rational is the left side of the arrow. Thus, that rule is useless when it comes to proving Rational on the right side of the arrow, as this answer is doing.

   18%
3. C

   Too Strong: never14% picked this

   Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part

   We only hear about many psychologists who think that often a justification is not part of the explanation. That's all we know about psychologists, so we can't prove that any of them think that a justification is never an essential part of the explanation.

   14%
4. D

   Out of Scope: cannot be discovered10% picked this

   There are actions whose causes cannot

   The only support we would have for the idea that some actions have causes that can never be discovered is that the 2nd sentence says, Every human action potentially has an explanation; that is, with sufficient knowledge it would be possible to give an accurate description of the causes of that action. But that sentence isn't saying that "some causes can never be discovered". The author may think that some causes never will be discovered. But, she believes if you did have sufficient knowledge, it would be possible to accurately describe the causes of every human action.

   10%
5. E

   Correct55% picked this

   If any human actions are rational, then reasons must sometimes be

   Why this is right

   When an action is rational, we're told in the final sentence, it means that the justification is an essential part of the explanation. If we substitute-in the definitions we were provided for those two words, we could say that, the [sufficient reasons for the action] are an essential part of [an accurate description of the causes of the action]. In other words, for rational actions, if someone were to ask, "Hey, what caused that action?" an essential part of the answer would involve the reasons for the action. Hence, when actions are rational, we're saying that reasons were an essential part of the cause for an action.

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

   55%