PT 72 S2 Q12 NA Question

BallerBear

I am confused about the word “generally” in the conclusion.

To Recap The argument form in Lawgic:
P1: Emotional Tendencies /(Changed)
Required Premise: Emotional Tendencies /(Changed)-> Generally /(Able to choose more wisely)
Conclusion: Generally /(Able to choose more wisely)

Answer choice E seems to bridge this quite well, (Able to choose more wisely)->Emotional Tendencies (Changed)
However, the conclusion is qualified with the word “generally,” which implies that that it holds true “in most cases.”
This, however, implies that SOME people can choose more wisely even if emotional Tendencies are NOT changed. This is precisely the negation of the conditional relationship between 'Emotional Tendencies' and 'Choosing more wisely.'

If all of the above is correct, then the sufficient assumption stipulated by answer choice E is presumably not even valid in all cases. So how can it possibly be a necessary assumption as well?

If the necessary assumption’s role is to put the argument on life support (to use JY’s phrase), then I presume the correct answer should read something like this:
“Usually, wise decisions at least in part require a change in emotional tendencies.”

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

jeff.wongkachi

I think the key here is the support structure of the argument and 'filling in the gap' so to speak. We know emotional tendencies are essentially unchanged and from that it concludes that people generally can't make wiser decisions even though technology gives us more possible choices we could make.

Why is it the case that emotional tendencies being essentially unchanged leads to general inability to make wiser decisions? We don't really know this.

E fills in this gap. Humans would now be able to make wiser choices than before only if an essential change happens in human's emotional dispositions.

Wiser choices than before->essential change in emotional dispositions.

If we negate E, humans would now be able to make wiser choices than before not only if an essential change... blah blah blah

Then there is no real argument at all. You can't even support 'generally' if it's not the case that an essential change has to happen. But if it's true, you definitely meet the threshold for 'generally'.

BallerBear

Thank you for your input!
Just to clarify, I am not disputing the fact that the gap must be filled. My problem with the answer choice is that the scope of a necessary assumption should precisely meet only ‘generally’ (after all that is necessary for the stimulus to work) and not an absolute conditional relationship (a stronger claim with a higher burden of proof, hence it can’t be necessary). Sure, the sufficient assumption would make it valid, but it is not necessary to do so. (in this light, I suppose I am saying exactly the reverse of your last two sentences).

If we negate answer choice E, we get something like “Humans could make wiser choices even if emotional tendencies haven’t changed.” If this was a correct answer choice, then it should completely wreck the argument. But, right now ‘generally’ still enables that some people indeed could make wiser choices even if emotional blah blah haven’t changed. If this ‘some’ relationship holds, we simply can’t conclude that there is a conditional relationship between the two. For all we know, it is not even applicable to 49% of all people (generally~~most).
Therefore, a NA answer choice should be something like this “Usually wise decisions at least in part require a change in emotional tendencies.” This fills in the gap in the most bare bone, necessary way without making a claim that is 1) invalid and 2) more exclusive than what the argument actually needs.