Conclusion The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent. ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ █████████████
The author says that the idea someone might be justified in acting irrationally towards a worthy goal doesn’t make sense. The author argues that it is impossible for someone to be justified in acting irrationally — because when an action is justified, it is rational. Being justified and irrational at the same time is impossible.
Which one of the following █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
A representative of ███ ████ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████
(A) would be more similar to the stimulus if the first sentence said “it is incoherent for someone to commit crimes and prevent crimes”. But (A) actually concludes that judges and officers shouldn’t commit crimes. The argument in the stimulus doesn’t make any argument about what people should or shouldn’t do.
One cannot intend ██ █████ █ █████ ██ █████ █████████████ ████████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████████████
(B) says that it’s impossible to intend to spill a glass of water accidentally, because if someone spills water accidentally, then it cannot have been intentional. (B) applies the reasoning that something cannot be accidental and intentional at the same time — that the two are incoherent. This is similar to the stimulus, which says that being justified and irrational is incoherent.
One cannot live ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████
(C) talks about the perceptions of one’s neighbors, which the stimulus doesn’t mention. Unlike in the stimulus, (C) doesn’t say that living the good life and being unhappy are inherently and definitionally incompatible — it relies on some reasoning about what neighbors will see.
Doctors cannot perform ███████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████████
(D) doesn’t use the same structure of 2 things being impossible to have simultaneously — it just makes an argument for why doctors cannot diagnose themselves. It’s also not a solid argument. It assumes that performing self-diagnosis requires practicing good medicine.
One ought not ██ ████ ████ █ ███ ███ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███ █████ █████████
(E) doesn’t use any conditional reasoning, and it doesn’t set out two things that are incompatible with each other. It’s also not a valid argument — it could be that the goldfish is safely in a tank and not at the disposal of the cat.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic