Every action has consequences,

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: only6% picked this

   Some actions have only other actions

   This answer is a strong idea that is irrelevant to the author's argument. We shouldn't be attracted to this answer given that it's getting all its language from the first sentence. (Linking answers combine language from different claims, and almost always involve language from the conclusion) If we negate this it's saying that "all actions have some consequences that are not-actions". That wouldn't hurt the author's argument at all.

   6%
2. B

   Out of Scope: past actions Contradicted8% picked this

   We can know that past actions

   The author never talked about past actions, so that should scare us. The author believes that good actions are impossible, so she would be contradicting herself by saying, "Some actions in the past were good actions".

   8%
3. C

   Out of Scope: refraining / bad7% picked this

   To know that an action is good requires knowing that refraining from performing

   The author never talks about refraining from actions or about bad actions, so both of those should make us nervous. The author already provided us a definition for knowing that an action is good (you have to know whether its consequences are good), so why would say the author is also assuming that "to know an action is good requires knowing that refraining from an action is bad".

   7%
4. D

   Too Strong: only6% picked this

   Only actions can be the consequences of

   This is just like (A). It's a strong idea that is irrelevant to the author's argument. We shouldn't be attracted to this answer given that it's getting all its language from the first sentence. (Linking answers combine language from different claims, and almost always involve language from the conclusion) If we negate this it's saying that "some consequences of actions can be non-actions". That wouldn't hurt the author's argument at all.

   6%
5. E

   Correct73% picked this

   For an action to be good we must be able to know that

   Why this is right

   The author presents two premises that we can combine and make an inference: 1. knowing an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good ("if you don't know whether the consequences of an action are good, then you don't know whether the action is good") + 2. We cannot know the future (i.e. "we can't know all the consequences of an action") ------------ Thus, we can't know whether an action is good. (It's impossible know whether an action is good) The author concludes on that basis that good actions are impossible. So her reasoning move was, "If it's impossible to know whether an action is good, then good actions are impossible". The contrapositive of that reasoning is, "For a good action to be possible, it must be possible to know whether an action is good".

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

   73%