Self-study
Philosopher: Support Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame. ███████████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █████████
Argument Summary
The main conclusion is sentence 5, signaled by "Hence." That's the philosopher's claim that any ascription of praise or blame to a group must be translated into a statement about individuals.
The intermediate conclusion is sentence 1: groups can't be worthy of praise or blame. This claim supports the main conclusion. If groups can't actually be worthy of praise or blame, then any praise or blame ascribed to them must really be about something else (such as the individuals inside the group).
That leaves sentences 2, 3, and 4 as the three premises supporting the intermediate conclusion. Sentence 2 supplies the rule: blameworthiness requires conscience and agency. Sentence 3 (the referenced text) tells us nations don't have consciences. Sentence 4 tells us families don't have agency. Combining the rule with each of those two facts gives instances showing that groups can't be worthy of blame, which is exactly what the intermediate conclusion claims.
MAIN CONCLUSION (sentence 5)
Ascription of praise or blame must be translated to individuals
supported by
INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION (sentence 1)
Groups can't be worthy of praise or blame
supported by
PREMISES (sentences 2, 3, 4)
• Blameworthiness requires conscience + agency
• Nations don't have consciences ← referenced text
• Families don't have agency
• Nations don't have consciences ← referenced text
• Families don't have agency
Anticipation
The referenced text supports the intermediate conclusion in sentence 1 (groups can't be worthy of praise or blame), which in turn supports the main conclusion in sentence 5 (ascriptions to groups must be translated to individuals).
16.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████
a
It is an ████████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████
The referenced text isn't an intermediate conclusion. An intermediate conclusion has its own support inside the argument, and nothing in the stimulus is offered to prove that nations lack consciences. The philosopher just asserts it as a premise. The actual intermediate conclusion in this argument is sentence 1: "groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame," which is what sentences 2, 3, and 4 are working together to support.
b
It is offered ██ ███████ ███ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████
This is exactly the role. "Nations don't have consciences" combines with "blameworthiness requires conscience" to support the intermediate conclusion that groups can't be worthy of praise or blame (sentence 1). That intermediate conclusion in turn supports the main conclusion that ascriptions to groups must be translated to individuals (sentence 5).
c
It is cited ██ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
The referenced text supports the conclusion; it isn't derived from it. (C) has the direction backwards. An "implication" of a claim is something that follows from the claim. The philosopher doesn't conclude "nations don't have consciences" from anything else in the stimulus. She asserts it as a premise that helps support a different claim.
d
It is cited ██ ██ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
"Nations don't have consciences" isn't an instance of any conclusion drawn in this argument.
The intermediate conclusion is that groups can't be worthy of praise or blame. A specific case of that would be something like "nations can't be worthy of praise or blame." The referenced text doesn't actually say that. It only supports that idea once you combine it with the separate premise that blameworthiness requires conscience.
The main conclusion is that ascriptions of praise or blame to groups must be translated into statements about individuals. A specific case of that would be something like "an ascription of blame to a nation should be translated into statements about individual people." The referenced text doesn't say anything like that either. It's just a factual claim about a property nations lack (consciences).
e
It is the ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
The main conclusion is sentence 5, signaled by "Hence": ascription of praise or blame to a group must be translated to statements about individuals. The referenced text is one of the premises supporting that conclusion through the intermediate conclusion in sentence 1.