Self-paced
Some have argued that once it becomes necessary for us to think about computers in terms of beliefs and desires in order to understand how they function, we can rightly say that computers have beliefs and desires. ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████
Reductio Ad Absurdum
Here’s the good stuff right up front. This argument is running what we call a reductio ad absurdum. Remember that phrase for law school! It’s a very common and exceptionally powerful argumentative strategy, both in the law and elsewhere, and in legal opinions it’s often referred to by name. Reductio 👏 Ad 👏 Absurdum
So ok wtf does it mean? Well the phrase is Latin for “reduction to absurdity,” and it’s an apt moniker: arguments by reductio show that an opposing viewpoint leads to absurd consequences, then conclude we must reject that viewpoint. Here’s an example:
You say no one looks good in a fedora. But look at this picture of Frank Sinatra wearing a fedora! If you were right, that would mean Frank Sinatra does not look good in this picture. But you and I both agree that’s absurd. So you must be wrong.
Argument Summary And Excerpt Role
·
The Future Is Now
The stimulus begins by presenting an opposing viewpoint (those dastardly “
Some: IF a time comes when we must think about computers using beliefs and desires, THEN we can say they have beliefs and desires.
Our author then responds “
Author: So according to your view, we can say our current computers have beliefs and desires!
Then comes our author’s conclusion:
Author: Your view is obviously wrong.
Notably, this argument makes a key assumption: for the reductio to work, everyone needs to agree that it would be absurd to claim that our current computers have beliefs and desires. So absurd, in fact, that we should abandon any viewpoint that forces us to make that claim.
Even though the author never explicitly says “That is absurd,” the argument nevertheless relies on it – the only way the argument would make sense is if we all took that claim as absurd.
Let’s look back at the excerpt:
This is the inference the author draws using the opponents’ own logic. An inference which they view as so obviously absurd that we should all agree the opponents must be wrong.
(Side note on “criterion”: This is just the singular version of the word “criteria.” Criteria are the standards we use to make various judgements. Your LSAT score, for example, is a criterion used in law school admissions. In this stimulus, “some” people see [it being necessary to think about computers in terms of beliefs and desires] as a criterion for when we can say computers have beliefs and desires.)
16.
The claim that the computers ████ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
It is held ██ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ █████ █████
Our excerpt is a
Tracking the sentence’s grammar, it is also the claim to which the suggested criterion
It is unacceptable because this is a reductio ad absurdum – directly after demonstrating that the opponents' view implies [the excerpt], the author concludes their view must be wrong.
b
It is a ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ████████████████
Quite the opposite, our excerpt is a view the argument assumes is obviously absurd.
One lens through which to see (B) is as a trap answer for people who misread the excerpt to be
c
It is an ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████
An example is a concrete scenario used to help people comprehend a general claim. For example, this very sentence is an example of an example.
Examples are a pretty specific kind of thing – a lot of criteria (lol) need to be fulfilled for something to count as an example. You need a general claim. You need a concrete scenario. You need that concrete scenario to be intended to display the general claim in action.
(C) being right would look like this:
Some people think once [criterion] happens, we can [call computers thinky feelies]. For example, if we thought [spaceships] would make [criterion] happen, we could then [call computers thinky feelies].
And then the excerpt would have to be the whole italicized part.
d
It is the ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
(D) is surely most tempting because our excerpt is a conclusion. It’s the conclusion someone must come to if they accepted the opponents' viewpoint and the author’s
It’s just not the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion is that the criterion is flawed.
e
It is a ███████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████
Quite the opposite – our author’s argument requires our excerpt (the idea that the computers that exist now have beliefs and desires) to be so obviously absurd that we must reject any viewpoint that led to it.
The author’s