Self-study
Philosopher: Conclusion It is absurd to argue that people are morally obligated to act in a certain way simply because not acting in that way would be unnatural. ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ███████████ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██ ███
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
OPA: Some argue that certain actions are morally obligatory because not acting in that way would be unnatural.
Conclusion: But that’s absurd, i.e., the argument’s logic is absurd.
Premise: An “unnatural action” is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly. Violating the laws of nature is impossible. A statistical anomaly is simply something uncommon, and that is not a good reason to avoid doing it.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Author shows that a key concept (”unnatural”) in OP’s premise can only mean two things, neither of which supports OP’s conclusion. Hence, OP’s conclusion is unsupported.
20.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ █████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ █████████
a
undermining a concept ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███████ █ ███ ██ ██████
Descriptively inaccurate. The only concept the author can arguably be said to be undermining is the concept of “unnatural.” Yet the author does not show that accepting the concept of “unnatural” would violate a law of nature. Instead, the author shows that “unnatural” can only have two meanings, neither of which supports the OP’s conclusion.
b
stating the definition ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████
Descriptively accurate. Author states the definition of “unnatural.”
c
using statistical findings ██ ███████ █ █████
Descriptively inaccurate. There is a difference between defining a concept as a “statistical anomaly” (which the author does) versus using a statistical finding (which the author does not do). A statistical finding would be, e.g., car accidents decreased 10% last year.
d
undermining a claim ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████████████
Descriptively inaccurate. There is a difference between stating that some “unnatural” actions are impossible to perform because they violate the laws of nature (which the author does) versus showing that the concept of “unnatural” is self-contradictory (which the author does not do).
e
using empirical evidence ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███████
Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not use empirical evidence—evidence gathered by observation or experimentation—to support anything. Example of empirical evidence could be a statistical finding that, say, car accidents decreased 10% last year.