Self-study
Conclusion It is obvious that one ought to have a will stating how one wishes one's estate to be distributed. ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ █ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ ███████ ███
Summary
The author concludes that everyone should have a will stating how one wishes one’s estate to be distributed.
Why?
Because under current laws, without a legal will, distant relatives you’ve never met will have a greater legal right to your estate than do your beloved friends.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that people don’t want distant relatives they’ve never met to have a greater legal right to their estate than their beloved friends do.
19.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
No one wants ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████
Sufficient, but not necessary. “No one” is too strong—the general recommendation in the conclusion can still hold as long as people tend to have a common preference about where their estates go. Also, the author only has to assume that people don’t want distant relatives they’ve never met to have a greater legal right to the estate than their friends do. It’s fine if some people want a charity, or close relatives they haven’t met, to have a greater legal right than anyone else.
b
One's estate should ██ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████
The concept of who is “deserving” has no part in the reasoning of the argument. Although the author assumes that people have preferences about how the estate is distributed, this doesn’t imply that the estate should be limited to people who are “deserving.”
c
Distributions of estates █████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████
The concept of “unjust” has no part in the reasoning of this argument. Although the author assumes that people have preferences about how the estate is distributed, this doesn’t imply that certain distributions are “unjust.”
d
People are generally ███ ███████████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████████████
Necessary, because if this were not true — if people ARE generally indifferent about how their estates are distributed — then the premise no longer provides a reason to think anyone should have a will. If people generally don’t care about who their estates go to, then why should the distant relatives vs. friends situation lead one to want a will?
e
One's beloved friends ████ █ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ █████████ ███
Not necessary, because under current law, one’s distant relatives have a greater legal right than one’s beloved friends do. The author assumes that people generally want their friends to have a greater legal right, but that isn’t true under current law.