Self-study
Louis: Conclusion People’s intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. ████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ █████ █████ ███ ████████
What Is Louis Arguing?
Louis concludes that people's intentions cannot be more bad than good. In other words, people's intentions are, on average, equally good and bad or actually more good.
Why does he think this? Because if we believed people's intentions were mostly bad, we'd stop trusting each other. And since society can't survive without people trusting each other, that belief would basically threaten society's survival.
In simpler terms, Louis is saying: "Believing this would cause something terrible. Thus, it can't be true." But he's not giving us any actual evidence that people's intentions are good. He's not pointing to examples of people being kind or generous. He's not citing any research. His only reason for rejecting the idea that intentions are mostly bad is that believing it would lead to bad things happening. He's making the argument entirely about what would happen if we held this belief, rather than about whether the belief is actually correct.
Anticipation
Here's the key question: does the fact that a belief would lead to bad outcomes mean the belief is false? No! Think about it this way. Imagine a doctor discovers that a patient has a serious illness. If the patient finds out, the stress might make the illness worse. Does that mean the patient doesn't actually have the illness? Of course not. The illness is real regardless of whether finding out about it would make things worse.
Louis makes the same kind of mistake. Even if believing "intentions are mostly bad" really would destroy trust and threaten society, that doesn't prove intentions aren't mostly bad. Something can be true even when believing it would cause problems. We're looking for an answer that calls out this gap between "believing X would be bad for us" and "X is false."
25.
The argument is most vulnerable ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
It fails to ████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████████████
This is exactly what Louis overlooks. His whole argument goes like this: "If we believed intentions were mostly bad, terrible things would happen (we'd lose trust, society would fall apart). So intentions can't be mostly bad." But (A) points out the problem: just because believing something would cause harm ("deleterious") doesn't mean the belief is wrong. A belief can be true and harmful to accept at the same time.
b
It mistakenly assumes ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ ██████
(B) accuses Louis of assuming that if two things can't both be true, then they can't both be false either. But what are the two things that can't both be true? It's difficult to match up anything from the stimulus. In addition, how does Louis think two things can't both be false? Or in other words, how does he think that if one thing is false, another thing must be true? Louis doesn't start with the idea that one thing is false and try to conclude that something else must be true. Rather, he argues against one claim (intentions are mostly bad) based on the consequences of believing it.
c
It challenges the █████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ █████
(C) describes a situation where someone attacks the people making an argument instead of the argument itself. For example, "You only say that because you're trying to sell me something" is this kind of attack. But Louis never questions why anyone might believe intentions are mostly bad or accuse them of having suspicious motives. His argument is purely about what would happen if we believed it, not about who believes it or why they believe it.
d
It assumes without ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████
(D) says Louis assumes the most negative outcome will "inevitably occur." You might connect this to Louis's claim that we'd
e
It provides no ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████████████
(E) describes a situation where someone observes something about one group of people and then assumes it's also true of a different group. But Louis doesn't do this. He's making a single general claim about people's intentions. He isn't studying one group and then applying his findings to another group.