Summarize Argument
The author claims that free will does not always have the same role in determining moral responsibility. The argument proceeds with two examples which support this claim by demonstrating situations where free will leads to different assessments of responsibility. First: the free choice to commit crimes leads to responsibility. Second: the free choice to eat a diet that causes a heart attack does not lead to responsibility for the consequences of having a heart attack while driving.
Identify Argument Part
The claim that a choice of diet can affect whether or not one has a heart attack helps to support the conclusion by demonstrating a situation where responsibility and free will have a different relationship from that associated with crime.
A
It is a subsidiary conclusion of the argument.
The claim about diet affecting heart attacks is not supported by anything else in the argument, so cannot be a subsidiary conclusion.
B
It is used to show that we should hold someone morally responsible for damages caused by having a heart attack while driving.
As with (C), the author never makes a claim about when we should or shouldn’t hold someone responsible. The argument is just trying to show that we assess responsibility differently in different situations.
C
It is cited as evidence that our concept of moral responsibility should be the same in all situations.
As with (B), the author makes no statement about how we should assess responsibility. The point of the argument is just to demonstrate that our assessment can differ based on factors other than free will.
D
It is used to disprove the claim that we should not hold criminals morally responsible for damages.
The author isn’t trying to disprove anything, and the argument never references a claim that we shouldn’t hold criminals morally responsible.
E
It is used in support of the conclusion of the argument.
This accurately describes what the claim about diet and heart attacks does in the argument: it’s a premise. It supports the conclusion as part of one of two conflicting examples.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that surgery performed by anyone other than a general surgeon involves undesirable risks. As premises, he gives two conditional claims:
(1) If a surgery is performed by someone who is not highly competent, it involves unwanted/undesirable risks.
(2) If someone is a general surgeon, that person has special training that makes them highly competent at performing surgery.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “being a general surgeon” as necessary for “being highly competent at performing surgery.” But according to premise 2, “being a general surgeon” is sufficient, not necessary.
In other words, the argument overlooks the possibility that other kinds of doctors might also be highly competent at performing surgery.
A
there are general surgeons who are incompetent
The author doesn't fail to consider this. In fact, he explicitly claims that general surgeons are highly competent, at least when it comes to performing surgery.
B
general surgeons are not the only doctors competent to perform surgery
The author mistakenly treats “being a general surgeon” as necessary for “being highly competent at performing surgery,” while in the premises, it’s merely sufficient. He fails to consider the possibility that other doctors may also be highly competent at performing surgery.
C
the competence of the doctor performing surgery does not guarantee a successful outcome
The author never claims that a competent doctor guarantees a successful surgery. He just argues that a surgery performed by an incompetent doctor involves highly undesirable risks.
D
risk is not the only factor in deciding whether to have surgery
The author concludes that surgery performed by anyone other than a general surgeon involves undesirable risks. But he never claims that the riskiness of a surgery is the only factor in deciding whether to have it.
E
factors in addition to competence are relevant when choosing a doctor
The author doesn’t claim that competence is the only relevant factor when choosing a doctor. He just argues that a surgery performed by an incompetent doctor involves highly undesirable risks.