PTC.S2.Q12 - Undoubtedly, one's freedom is always worth the risk...

addison101220

Was stuck between A and C on this one. A was right to me because the author seemed to "presume" that a person wouldn't value their life more than freedom. Can anyone help break down why this was an incorrect way of thinking this through?

maco4538

Always think of what type of evidence the author is using. For any type of evidence, there is some sort of inherent flaw within it. The evidence type used here is an analogy. An argument by analogy is inherently flawed because it assumes that two different scenarios are comparable. So, when you see an argument by analogy ask yourself "but are they really the same thing? "Can we really say that one's freedom is always worth risking one's life based on the analogy of living in an impenetrable box? It is bad practice to argue for a general principle using an extreme case. The flaw will always be about the way the author uses premises to reach their conclusion. Answer choice A takes issue with the conclusion itself - whereas we need an AC that takes issue with the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

addison101220

@maco4538 said:
Always think of what type of evidence the author is using. For any type of evidence, there is some sort of inherent flaw within it. The evidence type used here is an analogy. An argument by analogy is inherently flawed because it assumes that two different scenarios are comparable. So, when you see an argument by analogy ask yourself "but are they really the same thing? "Can we really say that one's freedom is always worth risking one's life based on the analogy of living in an impenetrable box? It is bad practice to argue for a general principle using an extreme case. The flaw will always be about the way the author uses premises to reach their conclusion. Answer choice A takes issue with the conclusion itself - whereas we need an AC that takes issue with the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

Thank you so much!