Kim: Support In northern Europe during the eighteenth century a change of attitude occurred that found expression both in the adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites by the population at large and in a more optimistic view of the human condition as articulated by philosophers. ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████
████ ████ ███████████ █████ █████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████
Kim presents textbook phenomenon-hypothesis reasoning:
Phenomenon: People got happier and less deathy during the 1700s.
—
Hypothesis: This is because they started living way longer during that time.
Lee challenges that reasoning by pointing out (what Lee believes to be) a necessary assumption:
For your argument to be correct, people must have been aware they were living way longer.
There are two main ways we could defend Kim. First, we could give evidence that the assumption Lee points out is true – i.e. we could present facts that indicate people were aware they were living longer.
Second, we could show that the assumption Lee points out isn’t necessary – i.e. we could map out a theory of how increasing life expectancy could have made people happier and less deathy even though they weren’t aware they were living longer.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ████████████
It refers to ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████
Lee just doesn’t do this. Are the sources of additional data in the room with us right now?
It offers an ███████████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████
Lee doesn’t offer a proactive alternative explanation; they only criticize Kim’s.
It cites an █████████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ███████████ ███████ ██████ █████
This would involve Lee describing another time period or another location where, for example, people started living longer but didn’t get happier or less deathy. Lee just sticks to criticizing Kim’s case.
It suggests that █████ ███████████ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ ███████████
Depends is a great key word (b/c it indicates necessity). Lee does indeed accuse Kim of assuming people’s awareness of their increasing lifespans.
It might sound circular, but we know Lee thinks the assumption is questionable because Lee questions it.
It points out ████ █████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████
For this to be right, we must be able to point out two separate hypotheses, then show that they cannot both be true. Kim’s explanation provides one hypothesis (happiness caused by longer life); Lee points out one assumption (people are aware they’re living longer). That’s all. Lee doesn’t claim that Kim makes two inconsistent claims.