"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does this moral system recognize some habitual actions as praiseworthy if actions can only be praiseworthy when they result from overcoming strong temptation?
Objective
A hypothesis reconciling this conflict must provide evidence that some habitual actions can be performed only after overcoming a powerful temptation.
A
People who perform good actions out of habit have often acquired this habit after years of having resisted temptation.
This explains why habitual actions can be praiseworthy. Though the actions may not require overcoming temptation in the moment, they result from overcoming temptation over an extended period.
B
Most people face strong moral temptation from time to time but few people have to endure it regularly.
This strengthens the conflict. If few people endure temptation regularly, then their habitual actions rarely or never involve overcoming temptation, and thus should not be praiseworthy.
C
People virtually always perform actions they think are good, regardless of what other people may think.
This does not explain how habitual actions can involve overcoming temptation. It addresses the requirement that praiseworthy actions be good, but does not address the primary conflict—that habitual actions can sometimes be praiseworthy.
D
Since it is difficult to tell what is going on in another person’s mind, it is often hard to know exactly how strongly a person is tempted.
This explains why habitual actions may sometimes be praised, but not why they are praiseworthy. If a person is incorrectly believed to have overcome temptation, the moral system described would not consider their actions praiseworthy based on that misconception.
E
It is far more common for people to perform good actions out of habit than for them to do so against strong temptation.
This explains the prevalence of certain actions without addressing the moral issue at hand. If people rarely perform good actions against strong temptation, then there is rarely reason to praise those actions.
Dr. Carabella: Not so. Telemedicine might help rural patient care initially. However, small hospitals will soon realize that they can minimize expenses by replacing physicians with technicians who can use telemedicine to transmit examinations to large medical centers, resulting in fewer patients being able to receive traditional, direct medical examinations. Eventually, it will be the rare individual who ever gets truly personal attention. Hence, rural as well as urban patient care will suffer.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
In response to Dr. Jones’s claim that telemedicine will improve rural patient care, Dr. Carabella concludes this is not the case. As evidence, she points out that small hospitals will replace physicians with telemedicine technicians, which will cause fewer patients to receive direct examinations. As a result, rural and urban patient care will suffer.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Dr. Carabella counters the position held by Dr. Jones. She does this by describing a cause-and-effect relationship of what would happen if rural patient care were to adopt telemedicine. Introducing telemedicine would cause small hospitals to replace physicians, which would cause fewer patients to receive direct examinations and in turn cause patient care to suffer.
A
listing a set of considerations to show that a prescribed treatment that seems to be benefiting a patient in fact harms that patient
Dr. Carabella does not address the topic of prescribed treatment. She only hypothesizes the effects of introducing telemedicine technology.
B
describing the application of the technology discussed by Dr. Jones as one step that initiates a process that leads to an undesirable end
The undesirable end is Dr. Carabella’s claim that rural and urban patient care will suffer. The process is the cause-and-effect Dr. Carabella describes as a result of implementing telemedicine.
C
citing evidence that Dr. Jones lacks the professional training to judge the case at issue
Dr. Carabella does not address Dr. Jones’s medical training. Dr. Carabella addresses Dr. Jones’s argument directly.
D
invoking medical statistics that cast doubt on the premises used in Dr. Jones’s argument
Dr. Carabella does not mention any medical statistics. Her counter to Dr. Jones is made generally.
E
providing grounds for dismissing Dr. Jones’s interpretation of a key term in medical technology
Dr. Carabella does not argue that Dr. Jones misinterpreted a key term. In fact, it is implied that Dr. Carabella and Dr. Jones agree what telemedicine is.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The restaurant manager concludes that his restaurant’s patrons prefer not to eat potatoes because after adding a dish of potatoes baked with cheese to the restaurant’s menu, nobody ordered the dish, even though it’s cheaper than the restaurant’s other vegetarian-friendly main dishes.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The restaurant manager reasons that because nobody has been ordering the dish of potatoes baked with cheese, the restaurant’s patrons must not like to eat potatoes. However, an error of reasoning in the argument is that the manager draws a conclusion that’s too specific without adequate evidence.
While the patrons may not be ordering the potato dish because they dislike potatoes, it could also be for other reasons. They may not be ordering the dish because they dislike the cheese in the dish, the name of the dish, or any other number of reasons.
While the patrons may not be ordering the potato dish because they dislike potatoes, it could also be for other reasons. They may not be ordering the dish because they dislike the cheese in the dish, the name of the dish, or any other number of reasons.
A
concluding that two things that occur at the same time have a common cause
The restaurant manager doesn’t discuss two things having a common cause. He just makes the case for why people aren’t ordering the potato dish.
B
drawing a conclusion that is inconsistent with one premise of the argument
The restaurant manager’s conclusion is that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes, and his premises are that nobody is ordering the potato dish even though patrons are ordering other vegetarian dishes that are more expensive. The premises doesn’t undermine the conclusion.
C
ignoring possible differences between what people say they want and what they actually choose
The restaurant manager doesn’t discuss what people say they want. He only discusses how patrons aren’t ordering the potato dish but are ordering the other vegetarian dishes.
D
attempting to prove a claim on the basis of evidence that a number of people hold that claim to be true
The restaurant manager doesn’t say his claim that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes is proven by the number of people who hold that claim to be true. He says the claim that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes is proven by nobody ever ordering the potato dish.
E
treating one of several plausible explanations of a phenomenon as the only possible explanation
This is the error the restaurant manager commits. Because people aren’t ordering the potato dish, the restaurant manager jumps to the explanation that the patrons don’t like potatoes. However, people not ordering the potato dish could have several other possible explanations.
Summarize Argument
The author of the book review concludes that R’s book doesn’t deserve attention from serious professionals because R frequently attributes bad faith to his critics, R believes that investigators’ funding sources determine what types of “findings” they report, and R often acts arrogant, overly ambitious, and nasty.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. In this instance, the author of the book review says that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because R is an unpleasant person who accuses his critics of bad things. Rather than attempting to point out issues with R’s book, the author just points out issues with R.
A
using an attack on the character of the writer of the book as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance
This is the flaw the author commits. Rather than criticizing R’s book, the author criticizes R and cites those criticisms of R as why R isn’t competent on matters of scientific substance.
B
taking it for granted that an investigator is unlikely to report findings that are contrary to the interests of those funding the investigation
The author doesn’t make this assumption. The author accuses R of making this assumption.
C
dismissing a scientific theory by giving a biased account of it
The author doesn’t give an account of R’s theory. The author just argues that R’s book shouldn’t receive attention from serious professionals because R has character flaws.
D
presenting as facts several assertions about the book under review that are based only on strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify
The author doesn’t make several assertions about the book. The author only makes several assertions about R and why R’s behavior proves that R’s book doesn’t deserve serious consideration.
E
failing to distinguish between the criteria of being true and of being sufficiently interesting to merit attention
The author isn’t concerned with whether R’s book is true or interesting. The author only argues that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because of R’s character flaws.
Dr. Carabella: Not so. Telemedicine might help rural patient care initially. However, small hospitals will soon realize that they can minimize expenses by replacing physicians with technicians who can use telemedicine to transmit examinations to large medical centers, resulting in fewer patients being able to receive traditional, direct medical examinations. Eventually, it will be the rare individual who ever gets truly personal attention. Hence, rural as well as urban patient care will suffer.
Speaker 1 Summary
Dr. Jones claims that telemedicine will improve care for rural patients. How so? Because it will allow far-away specialists to consult on rural patients’ conditions. This will give rural patients access to additional sources of advice, thus improving their care.
Speaker 2 Summary
Dr. Carabella argues that telemedicine will actually lower the quality of care for both rural and urban patients. This will happen because small hospitals will cut costs by replacing in-person doctors with remote care. Because of this, fewer patients will receive traditional care. Thus, it will become rare that patients receive personalized care. (We can infer that this means a lower quality of care.)
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The doctors disagree on whether telemedicine will ultimately raise or lower the quality of care for rural patients.
A
whether medical specialists in general offer better advice than rural physicians
Neither doctor makes a claim about whether specialists give better advice than rural physicians. Even Dr. Jones only discusses specialists as an additional source of advice, not necessarily a better source. Dr. Carabella just doesn’t mention specialists.
B
whether telemedicine technology will be installed only in rural hospitals and rural medical centers
Neither doctor expresses an opinion about telemedicine being limited to rural healthcare settings. For one, Dr. Jones makes a limited argument about the benefits of telemedicine for rural patients, but doesn’t discount the possibility of urban telemedicine as well.
C
whether telemedicine is likely to be widely adopted in rural areas in future years
Neither doctor directly talks about how likely telemedicine is to be widely adopted anywhere over any length of time. Their discussion is focused on the predicted effects of telemedicine, not its future popularity.
D
whether the patients who most need the advice of medical specialists are likely to receive it through telemedicine
Neither doctor talks about patients who most need specialists’ advice. Dr. Jones discusses rural patients in general, and Dr. Carabella throws an even wider net when talking about both rural and urban patients. Neither goes into this specific of a category.
E
whether the technology of telemedicine will benefit rural patients in the long run
Dr. Jones thinks that telemedicine will benefit rural patients by improving access to specialists, while Dr. Carabella thinks that telemedicine will ultimately harm rural patients through a general decline in the quality of care. This is the point of disagreement.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that psychologists who claim empathy is the best way, in theory, to understand someone else are wrong. He concludes this by arguing that since it’s impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person’s motivations, there’d be no way to achieve understanding according to the psychologists, and since one can understand people, the psychologists are wrong.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author reasons that if the psychologists are right, we can’t achieve understanding. However, this reasoning is flawed because the psychologists didn’t argue that deep empathy is the only way to understand people, only that it’s the best way. Also, the author’s reasoning that the psychologists are wrong is flawed. Just because the theoretically best way to do something wouldn’t work in practice, it doesn’t mean it’s not the theoretically best way.
A
fails to adequately define the key phrase “deep empathy”
The term “deep empathy” is defined right after it’s first mentioned.
B
assumes something that it later denies, resulting in a contradiction
The author erroneously assumes that the psychologists’ claim is contradictory to fact. However, the author never denies this assumption.
C
confuses a theoretically best way of accomplishing something with the only way of accomplishing it
This flaw is committed. The author reasons that if the psychologists are right, understanding can’t be achieved. However, the psychologists never argued that deep empathy is the only way to understand people. They only argued that it’s the best way.
D
accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring sufficient justification
The author doesn’t accept any claims on mere authority. The author argues that the psychologists’ claim is incorrect.
E
fails to consider that other psychologists may disagree with the psychologists cited
The author’s argument isn’t concerned with other psychologists. The author only argues that the psychologists who claim that deep empathy is the best way to understand another person are wrong.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Older people are more likely to have a disability, yet adults over 55 are less likely to receive disability benefits the older they are. The author believes this is because jobs have recently become more likely to offer disability benefits.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes no other explanations account for older people being less likely to receive disability benefits, either in addition to or as an alternative for the phenomenon described.
A
The treatment of newly incurred disabilities is more successful now than in the past in restoring partial function in the affected area within six months.
This is irrelevant without knowing when most people incur their disabilities. If most people over 75 developed their disabilities before age 65, for example, then this makes the phenomenon more surprising, rather than explain it.
B
Some people receive disability benefit payments under employers’ insurance plans, and some receive them from the government.
This states no difference between the government and employers’ insurance plans that would explain why older people are less likely to receive disability benefits. It doesn’t say that either payer is less generous and more likely to serve older people.
C
Medical advances have prolonged the average lifespan beyond what it was 20 years ago.
This would explain more people living past 75, but not why fewer of them receive disability benefits. It doesn’t say those medical advances have made older people less likely to suffer a disability.
D
For persons receiving disability benefit payments, those payments on average represent a smaller share of their predisability income now than was the case 20 years ago.
This doesn’t offer an alternative explanation. The author does not say a person’s predisability income impacts their chances of receiving disability payments.
E
Under most employers’ plans, disability benefit payments stop when an employee with a disability reaches the usual retirement age of 65.
This offers an alternative explanation. Older people are less likely to receive payments because they are more likely to have lived past the retirement age.