Self-study
Editorialist: Some people argue that we have an obligation not to cut down trees. ████████ █████ ███ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ █ █████████████ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██████
Summary
The author concludes that we don’t have an obligation not to cut down trees. Why?
Because if an entity doesn’t have a corresponding right not to be cut down, then there is no obligation to that entity. And we know trees aren’t the kind of thing have have rights.
Notable Assumptions
We know from the premises that trees don’t have rights; so we don’t have any obligation toward trees not to cut them down. But does that prove we have no obligation at all not to cut down trees?
The flaw in the argument is that we might have an obligation to entities besides trees not to cut trees down. For example, maybe we’re obligated to our future children not to cut down trees.
The author must assume that we do not owe an obligation to other entities not to cut down trees.
19.
The editorialist's argument depends on ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
If an entity ███ █ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████
Not necessary, because we already know that trees don’t have rights. So whatever must be true about things that do have rights doesn’t relate to the author’s reasoning.
b
Any entity that ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████████████
Not necessary, because we already know that trees don’t have rights. So whatever must be true about things that do have rights doesn’t relate to the author’s reasoning.
c
Only conscious entities ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███████
The concept of “conscious entities” has nothing to do with the reasoning of the argument. So (C) isn’t necessary.
d
Avoiding cutting down █████ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if avoiding cutting down trees IS an obligation owed to some entity other than trees — then we actually may still be obligated not to cut down trees, even if that obligation isn’t owed to the tree itself.
e
One does not ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████
The argument concerns whether we have an obligation not to cut down trees. Whether we have a right to cut down trees is a separate issue.