M: The Greek alphabet must have been invented by some individual who knew the Phoenician writing system and who wanted to have some way of recording Homeric epics and thereby preserving expressions of a highly developed tradition of oral poetry.

P: Your hypothesis is laughable! What would have been the point of such a person’s writing Homeric epics down? Surely a person who knew them well enough to write them down would not need to read them; and no one else could read them, according to your hypothesis.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
P concludes that M is incorrect to hypothesize that the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who knew the Phoenician writing system and wanted to record Homer’s stories. P claims that writing down those stories would have been pointless for such an individual, who would already know those stories without writing them down. Also, no one else would know the newly-invented alphabet and be able to read the stories.

Identify and Describe Flaw
P argues that M’s hypothesis is not convincing because there would be no point for someone to write down a story that they knew, in a new alphabet. However, P’s argument can be criticized for overlooking some convincing possible reasons:

1) the writer might anticipate forgetting the story later, and

2) the writer might teach the new alphabet to others.

A
It fails to demonstrate that the Phoenician alphabet alone could have provided the basis for the Greek alphabet.
P’s argument doesn’t rely on the claim that the Phoenician alphabet alone is the basis for the Greek alphabet. P isn’t making any claims at all about the basis for the Greek alphabet.
B
It incorrectly assumes that the first text ever written in Greek was a Homeric poem.
P simply doesn’t claim, nor rely on an assumption, that the first text written in Greek was a Homeric poem.
C
It confuses the requirements for a complex oral tradition with the requirements of a written language.
P doesn’t make any claims about the requirements of an oral tradition compared to those of a written language.
D
It attempts to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis merely by showing that it is possible.
P doesn’t attempt to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis at all, but rather, attempts to cast doubt on the truth of M’s hypothesis.
E
It overlooks the possibility that the person who invented the Greek alphabet did so with the intention of teaching it to others.
P claims that inventing an alphabet to write down Homeric stories would have been pointless partially because no one could have read the stories in a new alphabet. This overlooks the possibility that the writer wanted to teach others the alphabet.

18 comments

Advertisement: Anyone who thinks moisturizers are not important for beautiful skin should consider what happens to the earth, the skin of the world, in times of drought. Without regular infusions of moisture the ground becomes lined and cracked and its lush loveliness fades away. Thus your skin, too, should be protected from the ravages caused by lack of moisture; give it the protection provided by regular infusions of Dewyfresh, the drought-defying moisturizer.

Summarize Argument
The advertisement concludes that the audience’s skin should be regularly moisturized. This is based on an analogy to the earth, which experiences cracking and the loss of its beauty when it is not regularly moisturized.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The advertisement’s flaw is that it uses a bad analogy: it draws a conclusion about one case based on another case that isn’t really relevantly analogous. There’s no reason to believe that a lack of moisturizing will cause the same effects for skin as for the earth, since skin doesn’t have the same material properties as the earth.

A
It treats something that is necessary for bringing about a state of affairs as something that is sufficient to bring about that state of affairs.
The advertisement doesn’t confuse necessary and sufficient conditions in its reasoning. It does treat a lack of moisture as sufficient to cause cracking and loss of beauty in the earth, but never confuses that for a necessary condition.
B
It treats the fact that two things regularly occur together as proof that there is a single thing that is the cause of them both.
The advertisement just doesn’t claim that any two things that regularly occur together have a single shared cause. The only things that occur together here are lack of moisture and dryness, where one causes the other.
C
It overlooks the fact that changing what people think is the case does not necessarily change what is the case.
The advertisement doesn’t make any claims whatsoever about the relationship between what people think and what is actually true.
D
It relies on the ambiguity of the term “infusion,” which can designate either a process or the product of that process.
The advertisement doesn’t rely on an ambiguous use of the term “infusion”. Both times “infusion” is used, it it used to mean that moisture is being provided—it’s consistent, not ambiguous.
E
It relies on an analogy between two things that are insufficiently alike in the respects in which they would have to be alike for the conclusion to be supported.
The advertisement relies on an analogy between the earth and skin to draw a conclusion about the consequences of not moisturizing skin. The earth just doesn’t have the relevant similarities to skin which would be needed for the conclusion to be supported.

11 comments

Francis: Failure to become properly registered to vote prevents one-third of the voting-age citizens of Lagonia from voting. If local election boards made the excessively cumbersome registration process easier, more people would register and vote.
Sharon: The high number of citizens not registered to vote has persisted despite many attempts to make registering easier. Surveys show that most of these citizens believe that their votes would not make a difference. Until that belief is changed, simplifying the registration process will not increase the percentage of citizens registering to vote.

Speaker 1 Summary
Francis concludes that more people would register and vote if local election boards made the registration process easier. This is because failure to properly register prevents a large portion of the voting-age citizens from voting.

Speaker 2 Summary
Sharon concludes that until people start to think their votes make a difference, simplifying the registration process would not lead to more people registering and voting. This is because the portion of citizens who don’t register has been high even after prior attempts to simplify the registration process, and because surveys show most citizens think their votes won’t make a difference.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether making the registration process easier will lead to more people registering and voting.

A
whether changing the voter registration process would be cumbersome
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Francis speaks about a cumbersome registration process, but doesn’t say anything about whether changing the process will be cumbersome.
B
why so many citizens do not register to vote
This is a point of disagreement, although not framed in the way we might have predicted. Francis thinks so many people aren’t voting because of a difficult registration process. Sharon thinks the real problem is a belief that one’s vote doesn’t make a difference.
C
what percentage of those registered to vote actually vote
Sharon doesn’t express an opinion about what proportion of people aren’t registered to vote.
D
whether local election boards have simplified the registration process
Francis doesn’t express any opinion about this. She thinks more people would register to vote if the process were easier, but that doesn’t indicate any belief about whether some simplification has already occurred.
E
why the public lacks confidence in the effects of voting
Neither express an opinion about this. Although Sharon mentions that people don’t think their votes make a difference, she doesn’t describe why people think this way.

9 comments

The publisher of a best-selling self-help book had, in some promotional material, claimed that it showed readers how to become exceptionally successful. Of course, everyone knows that no book can deliver to the many what, by definition, must remain limited to the few: exceptional success. Thus, although it is clear that the publisher knowingly made a false claim, doing so should not be considered unethical in this case.

Summarize Argument

We shouldn’t consider the publisher’s false claim (about promising exceptional results to readers) to be unethical. Why not? Because everyone knows that, by definition, it’s impossible for many people to achieve an “exceptional” result. (If it’s exceptional, it must be rare!)

Notable Assumptions

The author makes two key assumptions:

(1) That the publisher expected the book to be read by many people. (If the publisher didn’t think many people would actually read the book, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s impossible to promise exceptional results to many people.)

(2) That if everyone knows that a claim can’t possibly be true, it’s not unethical to make that false claim.

We’re looking for a principle that strengthens. Principles are often conditional rules, so an answer that supplies assumption (2), or its contrapositive, is a good prediction.

A
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if it is reasonable for people to accept the claim as true.

Everyone knows that the book can’t achieve for many people what the publisher claims it can. So, it’s not very reasonable for people to accept that claim. This triggers the contrapositive of (A), leading to the author’s conclusion: the claim isn’t unethical.

B
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical if those making it derive a gain at the expense of those acting as if the claim were true.

This tells us when knowingly making a false claim is unethical. But we want to support the conclusion that knowingly making such a claim is not unethical. So (B) can’t help us.

C
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical in only those cases in which those who accept the claim as true suffer a hardship greater than the gain they were anticipating.

For this to support the conclusion, we’d first need to fail the necessary condition, thus triggering the contrapositive. But the premise is silent on this necessary condition. We don’t know whether anyone suffers hardship.

D
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if there is a possibility that someone will act as if the claim might be true.

For (D) to work, the premise would need to suggest that there’s no chance anyone will act as if the publisher’s promise might be true. This would trigger the contrapositive. But the premise tells us what all people know, not how all people act on that knowledge.

E
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical in at least those cases in which for someone else to discover that the claim is false, that person must have acted as if the claim were true.

This tells us when knowingly making a false claim is unethical. But we want to support the conclusion that knowingly making such a claim is not unethical. So (E) can’t help us.


52 comments

Essayist: The existence of a moral order in the universe—i.e., an order in which bad is always eventually punished and good rewarded—depends upon human souls being immortal. In some cultures this moral order is regarded as the result of a karma that controls how one is reincarnated, in others it results from the actions of a supreme being who metes out justice to people after their death. But however a moral order is represented, if human souls are immortal, then it follows that the bad will be punished.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished. This is based on the fact that the existence of “moral order,” which is a state in which bad is always punished, depends on human soulds being immortal.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. The premise establishes that human souls being immortal is necessary in order for “moral order” (bad always punished) to exist. But this doesn’t imply that if human souls are immortal, that this would be sufficient for “moral order” to exist.

A
From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized.
The premise establishes that human souls’ immortality is necessary for moral order. But the author mistakenly thinks this is sufficient for an element of that mordal order to be true (the element of the bad always being punished).
B
The argument takes mere beliefs to be established facts.
The author does not assume or conclude that anything is an established fact. Although he describes what some cultures believe about moral order in the second sentence, he doesn’t suggest that these beliefs are true.
C
From the claim that the immortality of human souls implies that there is a moral order in the universe, the argument concludes that there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal.
The author does not rely on a claim that immortality implies the existence of a moral order. Rather, the premise asserts that immortality is necessary for a moral order. Also, the conclusion does not assert that a moral order implies immortality.
D
The argument treats two fundamentally different conceptions of a moral order as essentially the same.
Although the author describes two conceptions of a moral order in the second sentence, the author does not treat these as the same. These play no role in supporting the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the first sentence, which describes what is necessary for a moral order.
E
The argument’s conclusion is presupposed in the definition it gives of a moral order.
The author does not use circular reasoning. The conclusion asserts that immortality is sufficient for an aspect of moral order. This idea is not assumed in the premise, which asserts instead that immortality is necessary for moral order.

38 comments