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

axbSunDevaxbSunDev Member
edited May 2021 in Logical Reasoning 256 karma

I was stuck between A, B, and C lol

Someone please save me. I chose A because the author is assuming that freedom is worth more than anything else, even more than your life and I feel like A is catching onto to that by saying there could be other things of higher value (like your life in this situation) and the other can't just say 1 thing is paramount at the expense of everything else. Flaw Q are my worst in LR.

Thanks 7Sage!

Comments

  • Lime Green DotLime Green Dot Member ⭐
    edited May 2021 1384 karma

    Hello!

    (A)
    Where is the author of this ARG ever comparing freedom with any other thing one can place value on? It's clear the author puts a pretty high premium on "one's own life"; however, is the author really saying that health, family, or access to clean, potable water would never be of greater value than having your freedom? The answer is not necessarily. But b/c we can only say 'not necessarily,' this A/C cannot be true. We just don't have such a blanket statement from the author to support (A). It's what we'd call a false comparison.

    And I think when you mention "there could be other things of higher value," you're missing where the argument fails. Remember (it's a trap I've fallen into a LOT), we are trying to see how the evidence presented, the PREMISE, does an awful job of supporting the CONCLUSION. That's our point of attack. We should not go off on tangents that the ARG is not concerned about addressing. This is why you might see people go like, "Irrelevant!!" and it's this catch-all phrase you want to try avoid using to rule out an A/C, b/c it's kinda a lazy way to get around explaining why an A/C is irrelevant, but it does generally capture the idea that the A/C, like (A) in this Q, just doesn't get the point.

    Why can't we just say that the person in the cement room who has no hope of escaping and is thus 'not really living' and has 'nothing to lose' DOESN'T support the claim that your freedom is always worth the risk of your life?

    (B)
    What attracted you to this? You explained your thought process for (A). Tell me more about what you were thinking when you read this one.

    (C)
    Ditto. What made this a 'contender' but not a clear 'winner' for you when you read it?

Sign In or Register to comment.