One of the great difficulties in

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong3% picked this

   Not all animals should be given

   Too Strong: shouldn't be given rights Opposite, if anything Whenever we see "Not all A's are B", we will translate that into "Some A's are not-B". Was our author saying that some animals should not be given rights? I can't find a spot where she's saying that. She seems to think that some non-animals, like plants, should not be given rights, since she finds it problematic if we define living things too broadly. And she seems to think that all animals should have rights, since she seems concerned that we would leave some animals out were we to define living things narrowly.

   3%
2. B

   Too Strong: cannot10% picked this

   One cannot bestow rights on animals without also bestowing rights on at

   If this answer said, "one cannot bestow rights on all animals w/o also bestowing rights on at least some plants", it would sound pretty good. A broad definition of living things will lead to some plants getting rights. A narrow definition will lead to some animals not getting rights. But that narrow definition is proof that you "can bestow rights on animals w/o bestowing rights on some plants". So the existence of the "narrow definition" option seems to contradict this answer. If we were reading the answer as implying "bestowing rights on (all) animals", this answer would still be wrong. The first sentence is saying that we encounter this too broad / too narrow problem when we attempt to establish animal rights based merely on the fact that animals are living things. If we don't base animal rights merely on that fact, then it might well be possible that we can bestow rights to all animals without accidentally including plants.

   10%
3. C

   Too Strong: every18% picked this

   The problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living things interferes with every attempt

   This paragraph is only about one specific attempt/strategy to establish animal rights. If we are trying to establish them merely on the fact that animals are living things, then we run into the problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living things. But no one ever said that "all attempts" to establish animal rights involve doing so based solely on the fact that animals are living things.

   18%
4. D

   Correct62% picked this

   Successful attempts to establish rights for all animals are likely either to establish rights for some plants or not to depend solely on the

   Why this is right

   What a mouthful. This does tie in all three ideas, not that the correct answer has to (but when it does, you often know you're doing "good Inference work"). If we establish based broad = include plants solely on observation ? or that animals = living narrow = omit animals The subject noun of this sentence is talking about a situation in which we "successfully established rights for all animals". That means that this 2nd "narrow" option is off the table, in this conditional. If we're establishing rights based solely on "animals = living things", then we'll include plants. If we establish based broad = include plants solely on observation ? or that animals = living narrow = omit animals Our only other option, by contrapositive, is to avoid establishing animal rights on that basis: if we're NOT ? not establishing animal rights including plants solely b/c animals = living If the original rule were A ? B or C This answer is saying, "in a situation that avoids C, we will either have to do B or have to avoid doing A".

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

   62%
5. E

   Too Strong: irrelevant8% picked this

   The fact that animals are living things is irrelevant to the question of whether animals should or should not be accorded rights,

   The author hasn't established that being a living thing is irrelevant to establishing animal rights. She's shown that although it may be necessary, it's not sufficient. If you try to establish rights based merely on the "living things" definition, then you'll get a crappy outcome either way you slice it. But she wouldn't say let's not even include "living things" as one of the criteria that's relevant to whether an animal should have rights. Her paragraph supports a conclusion that we should include other criteria in addition to "living things", in order to avoid overincluding or underincluding things that should have rights.

   8%