PT93.S3.Q17 - Anarchist: People can either fight for anarchy

SabrinaDSabrinaD Member
edited November 2022 in Logical Reasoning 17 karma

Can anyone explain why E is the correct answer choice? I thought the premise sets out that we could only choose from anarchy and totalitarian government control. If we cannot question the premise, why is this E correct? Thanks!

Comments

  • blanklawblanklaw Member
    490 karma

    I considered this a "false dichotomy" flaw-- even though the premises did assert this split, it doesn't make it logically ok. We can accept that it is what the author is saying, but we are saying this is logically fallacious- I think it's why the question asks: a flaw in the author's reasoning.

    Hope that helps...

  • Steven_B-1Steven_B-1 Member
    800 karma

    So the conclusion is that people should fight for anarchy, which allows each individual the freedom to pursue happiness.

    That's in contraposition to totalitarian governments which control all facets of our life and destroy our spirit. If we knew that these were the only two options available, then the argument makes some sense because why not fight for anarchy if the other option is basically spiritual death.

    The problem is that the argument fails to rule out that there aren't better options available for us. Why not fight for democracy? for republicanism? for a constitutional monarchy? etc... I think another reason its a clear flaw is because we dk if anarchy also entails certain negative consequences that would outweigh the "good."

    The argument doesn't say that people's ONLY options are to fight for anarchy or tolerate totalitarianism. It says that we CAN do either of these things. That doesn't rule out other options, therefore the conclusion is flawed. I think this is the crux of the distinction but I'm happy to hear what others think. Because if it had said that these were the only 2 options available, then the argument would make sense. It would be like saying, you can only vote for either X or else Y, but voting for Y leads to death while voting for X gives you a chance, therefore you should vote for X. That would make sense.

    So in a simplified version, I think of the argument as someone saying "people can either lie down or stand up, but standing up is exhausting, so people should lie down." BUT, what about sitting down? The author didn't think of that.

    A - descriptively inaccurate. The argument did give us a reason why anarchy is a desirable alternative ( it allows us to pursue a personal course of happiness).
    B - The argument doesn't do this at all.
    C - Nope, this is saying that the premise was people should fight for anarchy and that the argument concluded that therefore totalitarianism is objectionable. This is descriptively inaccurate.
    D - This is contradicted because the argument does indicate that there is evidence for the claim. It says that history shows it. It may not give us the specific examples but it is point out the fact that there is evidence.

    So I think we could get to E by process of elimination even if we didn't catch the false dichotomy.

Sign In or Register to comment.