#12 - Undoubtedly, one’s freedom is always worth the risk of

[netherlands]

On this one I was a little thrown by the verbiage. Is some one really generalizing from a claim if they use the term "consider" first? I guess for some reason their using the phrase "consider" made me look at the following info about being in a cement room as simply an example ( assumedly, one example of many, I guess) and so didn't initially think "oh, he's generalizing from this one example".

B, D and E were ruled out by process of elimination and then there was A. It was just difficult for me to rule out A. I'm not sure why. Would either of you be able to just give me your thoughts on this one?

Thank you!

[Jason Schultz]

Hi netherlands,

"Consider", when it is used in this way, simply means 'For example.' It's a very strong premise indicator.

As regards A, be careful with comparisons and their context. If I say A is better than B, I'm not implying that A is the best thing ever. My comparison is limited to A and B and without more information cannot be extended beyond that without creating a strawman.

Answer choice A invites that same mistake. The stimulus writer says only that freedom is worth the risk of losing one's life. A) suggests that means that "nothing" is greater than freedom, which is only true if you mistakenly assume that your own life is the most valuable thing in the world, and freedom would thus be greater than that. But the author never says that, and so A doesn't address the proper fallacy.

[netherlands]

Kk, well that helps me point out the assumption I made. Just because freedom is worth losing life doesn't necessarily mean nothing is more important then freedom - kind of me bringing outside/real world assumptions into the picture and assuming that nothing can be more important than anything that is more important than life.

I guess me searching for the perfect wording or being thrown off by how they word things is something I need to keep in mind. To me "generalizing from a single extreme" means that only that particular single scenario was taken into account prior to coming to the conclusion. Yet, by using "consider" I interpreted it as one of many examples that were taken into account by the author - in which case his flaw to me would be using an insufficient or poor example as justification for a claim. Had the stimulus said " since a person who is locked in a cement room" I think I would have recognized that he was generalizing from one extreme.

But. In an effort to not argue against the test and rather understand ill look at this a few more times to drill it in that there was an extreme example which should have been what initially caught my eye.

[Steve Stein]

Hey netherlands,

Really good response--especially the part about not arguing against the test; saying that it is worth risking your life for your freedom is not the same as claiming that your freedom is the most valuable thing in existence.

The author presents only a single example for consideration, and on its basis draws a very broad conclusion:

Premise: Consider this one strange example of someone stuck hopelessly in a cement room; that person has nothing to lose.

Conclusion: Therefore one's freedom is always worth risking one's life.

...pretty bold claim (using the term "always"), given the single premise offered in support.

I hope that's helpful! Really interesting question--thanks!

~Steve

[netherlands]

Ok! Looking at what you italicized too I definitely should have paid attention to the "therefore all" part too.

[blade21cn]

I've difficulty comprehending the verbiage and logic of the argument. To justify "one's freedom is always worth the risk of losing one's life," I'd expect the scenario that supports it to go along the same vein that life is sacrificed but freedom is gained, which I did not find in the example as presented - freedom is impossible (being locked in a bare cement room with no hope of escape) and no word on sacrifice of life.

To complicate the matter, "freedom" is ambiguous - (1) the right of self-determination; (2) physical confinement; and (3) the state of not being subject to or affected by secular concerns. The conclusion seems to adopt the first definition, as in New Hampshire's motto "live free or die," but the example seems to adopt the second meaning of someone being physically confined, who eventually becomes tangle free - "has nothing to lose," which is the third definition. In addition, the meaning of "life" shifts from "the opposite of death" in the conclusion to "meaning of existence (not really living)." Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

blade21cn,

I'm not sure how freedom could be gained with the loss of life, but I agree that you should expect the example to show a situation where freedom is gained at considerable risk, or life is not worth living if there is no possibility of freedom. The example does seem to show the latter - a life without freedom or the possibility of freedom is worthless. So, being alive in such a situation is not worthwhile, demonstrating that, in this situation, it's not worth being alive if one lacks freedom. Therefore, in at least this situation, freedom is worth more than life. The problem is that this situation is so extreme that it's not really going to do anything to prove a general claim about freedom ALWAYS being worth enough to justify a risk to one's life. That's the problem answer choice (C) is talking about.

I don't think ambiguity infects this stimulus. The person in the extreme example has no freedom in any sense but is alive, so has life in some sense. The author thinks this possession of no freedom but some life, which we're supposed to judge as worthless position, demonstrates that 0 freedom + some life does not equal any worth - therefore, freedom is worth more than life. The sense in which such a person could be free seems irrelevant - the person in the room is not free in any sense. That person is alive in that they aren't dead.

Robert Carroll