Self-study
Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that humans are not superior to animals. This is based on a subsidiary conclusion that humans are not rational. The author supports this sub-conclusion with the fact that humans knowingly pollute the world’s air and water, and engage in farming practices that hurt the soil. To the author, this behavior doesn’t meet the definition of “rational,” which is “the capacity for well-considered thinkiong and behavior.”
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that knowingly damaging the environment is not well-considered thinking and behavior. The author also assumes that engaging in behavior that isn’t well-considered implies the lack of ability (capacity) to engage in such behavior. This overlooks the possibility that humans have the ability to be well-considered, even if they don’t always act that way.
15.
The reasoning above is flawed ██ ████ ██
a
relies crucially on ██ ██████████ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████████
There’s nothing contradictory about the definition — the capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. This definition makes logical sense. The author tries to show that human behavior doesn’t fit this definition, but that doesn’t mean the definition is contradictory.
b
takes for granted ████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████
The author assumes that humans act in ways that aren’t well-considered. But the author doesn’t assume humans are aware this behavior is allegedly irrational. The definition of “rational” doesn’t involve humans’ awareness of rationality.
c
neglects to show ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████
The author never suggested animals are not also irrational. So he didn’t need to show that animals aren’t irrational.
d
presumes, without offering ██████████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███████
The author concludes that humans are not superior to other animals. That doesn’t mean the author believes humans cannot be worse. If humans are worse than animals, that doesn’t undermine the author’s position.
e
fails to recognize ████ ██████ ███ ███████ █ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██ █ █████ ████████
The author fails to realize that humans may possess a capacity (for well-considered thinking/behavior) without displaying it in a given activity (various activities that hurt the environment). One can possess the ability to do something even if one doesn’t always do it.