Self-study
Essayist: Support The existence of a moral order in the universe—i.e., an order in which bad is always eventually punished and good rewarded—depends upon human souls being immortal. ██ ████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ██ █████████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ █ █████ █████ ██ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████████
Necessary ≠ Sufficient
The author defines "moral order" as a state in which bad is always eventually punished and good rewarded. Then the author states that the existence of this moral order depends upon human souls being immortal. "Depends upon" tells us that immortality is a necessary condition for moral order. Without immortal souls, there can be no moral order.
But then the author concludes that if souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished. This treats immortality as a sufficient condition for moral order (or at least for one element of it: punishment of the bad).
See the problem? The premise says immortality is required for moral order. The conclusion says immortality guarantees an element of moral order. Proving something is necessary for X doesn't show that it's sufficient for X.
Want A Diagram?
A diagram might make the flaw easier to see:
What the premise says (immortality is necessary):
moral order
(bad punished)
→
(bad punished)
immortal souls
What the author concludes (immortality is sufficient):
immortal souls
→
bad punished
The premise tells us: moral order → immortal souls (immortality is necessary for moral order). The conclusion asserts: immortal souls → bad punished (immortality is sufficient for punishment). The author flips the direction of the arrow.
23.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
a
From the assertion ████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████████
This is exactly right. The premise establishes that immortal souls are necessary for a moral order. But the conclusion treats immortal souls as sufficient for an element of that moral order (punishment of the bad). "Depends upon" means "requires," not "is guaranteed by."
b
The argument takes ████ ███████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██████
The author describes beliefs held by various cultures (karma, a supreme being dispensing justice) but never claims these beliefs are true. The second sentence is background context that illustrates different conceptions of moral order. The author's actual reasoning is based on the logical relationship stated in the first sentence, not on the truth of any culture's beliefs.
c
From the claim ████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ █ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ███ █████████
(C) gets the argument's structure wrong in both directions. First, the premise does not claim that immortality implies moral order. It claims that immortality is necessary for moral order, which is the reverse direction (moral order implies immortality). Second, the conclusion does not assert that moral order implies immortality. The conclusion asserts that immortality implies punishment (an element of moral order). So (C) mischaracterizes both the premise and the conclusion.
d
The argument treats ███ █████████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████
The two conceptions of moral order (karma-based reincarnation and divine justice after death) appear in the second sentence, but they're just illustrations. The author isn't using them as evidence for the conclusion. The conclusion follows from the first sentence's claim about what moral order depends upon. Since the two conceptions play no role in the argument's logic, treating them as equivalent (even if the author did) wouldn't be the flaw that undermines the reasoning.
e
The argument's conclusion ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █ █████ ██████
Circular reasoning means the conclusion just restates a premise in different words. But that's not what happens here. The premise says immortality is necessary for moral order ("depends upon"). The conclusion says immortality is sufficient for an element of moral order ("if immortal, then bad will be punished"). These are genuinely different claims.