Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author takes on a claim by vegetarians that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat. The author presents a hypothetical that would make it unclear if the second reason is actually individually sufficient. If eating meat is essential to good health, it becomes unclear if empathy for other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to not eat meat.
Identify Argument Part
This is a hypothetical premise used to demonstrate that it is not clear if an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to stop eating meat.
A
It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat.
This inaccurately identifies the position being disputed. The author is weakening the idea that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat, not that we should avoid meat.
B
It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.
The supposition actually shows that the two types of reasons are somewhat dependent. The second reason doesn’t hold up as well if the first reason is failed. Therefore, they are interconnected.
C
It is used to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet is healthy.
The author is presenting a hypothetical premise, not actually disputing the health of vegetarianism.
D
It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.
By presenting this supposition, the individual strength of this reason for not eating meat is weakened. It shows that this reason may not be completely sufficient.
E
It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.
The author is weakening one of two potentially sufficient reasons. The first reason remains sufficient in this argument.
Summary
The author concludes that the party’s policy is inconsistent. This is based on the fact that the party has expressed the following views at different times:
Increasing spending on education is a worthy goal.
The government should not increase spending on education.
Increasing spending on education is a worthy goal.
The government should not increase spending on education.
Notable Assumptions
One view expressed by the party is that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal. Is that inconsistent with, at other times, thinking that the government should not increase spending on education? Not necessarily. Maybe increasing spending on education is a worthy goal, but there are times when there are even more worthy goals, so the government should increase spending for other things instead of education. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about the views expressed.
It’s not clear what we should anticipate, but we should go into the answers with the understanding that the author assumes that the party’s expression of both views is somehow inconsistent.
It’s not clear what we should anticipate, but we should go into the answers with the understanding that the author assumes that the party’s expression of both views is somehow inconsistent.
A
It is inconsistent for a legislator both to claim that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal and to vote against increasing spending on education.
We don’t know that the party voted against increased spending on education. All we know about are views that the party has expressed.
B
A consistent course of action in educational policy is usually the course of action that will reduce spending on education in the long run.
The author doesn’t have to assume anything about effectiveness at reducing spending. The argument simply concerns two views and whether they are inconsistent.
C
Even if a goal is a morally good one, one should not necessarily try to achieve it.
Not necessary, because the argument doesn’t concern what should or should not be achieved. The argument simply concerns two views and whether they are inconsistent.
D
A consistent political policy does not hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if a consistent political policy CAN hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed — then there’s nothing about the two views that warrants thinking there’s an inconsistent policy. The two views can be part of a consistent policy, if (D) were negated.
E
Members of one political party never have inconsistent views on how to best approach a political issue.
The argument doesn’t concern claims about individual members of a party. It’s about whether the party itself has a policy that’s inconsistent.