PTA.S4.Q25 - pls someone explain this

amesaroni

The correct answer is A-fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious consequences.

While the AC by itself is reasonable, I am just not seeing how it is a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

I identified the conclusion as the first sentence of the stem, is this where I'm messing up?

Clemens_

Louis argues:

(P1) If we were to believe that other people’s intentions are generally more bad than good, then we could not trust each other.
(P2) If we could not trust another, our society could not survive.
(C) Therefore, it cannot be the case that people’s intentions are more bad than good.

In short, Louis thinks that people’s intentions must generally be positive, because a dominance in bad intentions would have negative consequences (society could not survive). Is this solid from a reasoning perspective? Can we really rule out the possibility of a given states of affairs just because that states of affairs would have negative consequences? Clearly not; this would be like saying ‘Chocolate cannot have a high sugar content. After all, if chocolate did have a high sugar content, it could cause health issues.’ Just because something has negative consequences does not mean that that thing cannot be the case.

This is the trap that Louis runs into, and why (A) is right. The test writers want us to notice: Perhaps society really will not survive, wishful thinking alone does not amount to valid arguments.

anonymous8

When I have a hard time with a question, I slow down and simplify. Here’s how I arrived at the correct answer.

Conclusion: “People’s intensions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good”
Simplified: This statement must be true.

Premise: “Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members”
Simplified: Because if we don’t believe this is true, bad things will happen.

Reasoning: So, what if bad things happen? That’s not a good enough reason to disregard the conclusion. Are things only true if they have a good outcomes? No. The argument is assuming bad things can’t happen based on true statements. That’s the flaw and why answer choice A is correct.

Here's an example I made up:
Conclusion: People cannot smoke cigarettes.
Premise: If they do, they’ll develop lung cancer and die at a younger age.
Reasoning: So? You’re are assuming that you can’t believe or do something that has a bad outcome. People ‘til this day smoke cigarettes even though they know it's harmful to their health. Just because it has negative consequences doesn’t mean that “people cannot smoke cigarettes”. People still smoke.

Hope this helps!