PT39 S4 Q19

babybenny

I couldn't pick between A and D and finally chose A. But the answer is D.
I kept trying to find out why A is wrong, but I still don't understand why A can't be an answer.
If A is an assumption, I think it all makes sense at all just like D.
Why A is wrong and D should be an answer?

Please someone explain me.
Thanks!

inactive

Bump

c.janson35

D has to be correct because the negation of D destroys the argument. If everyone was generally indifferent about how their estates were distributed then there would be no reason for anyone to have a will and the conclusion that everyone should would therefore be destroyed.

A is tricky and tough to eliminate. The conclusion of the argument is that everyone should have a will. Why? Because without one, relatives people do not know have a greater legal right to their estate than beloved friends. With this in mind, let's negate A:
"Some people want his or her estate to be given to people they don't know"

First of all, just because 1 person (i.e. Some) may want this doesn't destroy the conclusion that is about why people in general ought to have a will. Secondly, the argument never mentions anything about relatives people have never met actually receiving property, just that they have a greater legal right than close friends. But this does not mean that they will get the property because there may be close family with an even greater legal right. So, again, the fact that some people may not care if people they never met get their property doesn't destroy the argument because the argument is about why people generally should have wills because, without one, family members never met will have a greater legal right to their stuff than their friends.


Hope this helps!

LoraxMan

Another way to think about this question is the distinction between sufficient and necessary assumptions.

A necessary assumption question, such as #19, asks us what assumption is required, or necessary, for the argument to obtain. A sufficient assumption questions asks us to justify the argument, but not what information is necessary to make the argument hold in any case.

A. is tricky because it is sufficient to prove our argument correct. If relatives one has never met have a greater right than friends, and no one wants an estate to go to someone one has never met, then we can conclude without a doubt that everyone ought to have a will stating how to distribute their estate. However, does response A. make the argument hold in all cases, or just in this specific case where we hold that "no one wants his or her estate to go to someone he/she has never met?

D. Is the better answer choice because is is necessary for the argument to obtain. If we hold that everyone ought to have a will, then (D) we must assume that people are not indifferent about how their estates are distributed. The negation test that @c.janson35 uses to verify this answer works because when we negate a necessary condition (in this case assumption) the sufficient assumption (In this case the argument) will be negated (shattered) as well.

I would recommend going back to the rattlesnake question (PT 30, S2, Q22) and JY's lesson on necessary v. sufficient if you need more context here.