#25 - Louis: People’s intentions cannot be, on the whole

[kaed]

Can someone please explain why A is the correct answer? I'm stumped.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Kaed,

Good question. This is a flaw in the reasoning question, so we are looking for an answer choice that describes why the stimulus isn’t good reasoning. Before we even look at the answer choices, we want to stop and think about what we would want the correct answer choice to describe.

This argument starts with the conclusion: People cannot be more bad than good. Louis supports this by stating that if we didn’t believe that, then we wouldn’t trust each other. If people don’t trust each other, then society can’t survive.

What’s wrong with this? Well, the information given doesn’t actually support the conclusion. The premises support the idea that it would be bad if people were more bad than good, and it would be bad if people generally believed people were more bad than good. But that’s very different than proving or supporting that it isn’t the case that people are more bad than good.

Let’s think about a similar argument. People cannot dump thousands of tons of plastic in the oceans. If people did dump thousands of tons of plastic in the ocean, fish and sea life would be at risk. Without a vibrant ocean ecosystem, humans may struggle to survive.

What’s wrong with that argument? The support (dumping plastic is bad for the ocean life, and that would be bad for humans) does not support the conclusion that plastic dumping is not occuring. Similarly, in the stimulus, the fact that it would have negative consequences if people were more bad than good doesn’t mean that the truth is that people are more bad than good.

Whew. That was a lot of work before we get into the answer choices. It might even feel like an overwhelming amount of work. But remember on test day, all these thoughts are running through your head in the background. It takes a while at first to work through prephrasing and thinking through an argument. But it’s worth it during practice to understand the process and improve your speed and accuracy.

Are you ready to look at the answer choices?

Answer choice (A): This choice is correct. It describes what we have in the stimulus. The problem in the stimulus is that Louis jumps right from a fact having bad consequences to the fact can’t be true. That’s the same as failing to rule out that a true fact could result in bad consequences. We like this answer choice.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice cannot be true, because we don’t have two opposite claims.

Answer choice (C) This answer choice is incorrect because the stimulus doesn’t talk about the motives of the proponents of the claim at all. We don’t know anything about the proponents at all.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because the author doesn’t assume the most negative will occur. If anything, the author is assuming that the more positive event will occur.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because the argument doesn’t differentiate between different groups of people at all.

Hope this helps.
Rachael

[Henry Z]

The language is not only confusing, but downright sloppy in this question. I hope it's because it is an ancient PT.

I eliminated (A) because the author's whole reasoning was based on the fact that a belief can have deleterious consequences. It baffles me that the correct answer is the author neglects it?

I chose (B) because I thought we did have "two opposite claims": ppl are more bad than good vs. society survives. The author doesn't think they can both be true, but neglects that they can both be false: ppl are more good than bad and society survives without mutual trust.

[Robert Carroll]

Henry Z,

I think this one is confusing and difficult, but I see nothing sloppy here whatsoever.

Louis's argument is exactly that a certain belief must be false because of its consequences. As you say, the argument IS based on the fact that a belief can have deleterious consequences. But that a belief can have deleterious consequences certainly can't determine whether that belief is true or false, right? Unless someone thinks that the fact that a belief can have deleterious consequences automatically proves it's false. Well, Louis says "The belief that people intentions are more bad than good would have deleterious consequences. Therefore, that belief is false." Louis thinks a belief has consequences (of course, many do). Louis thinks that these consequences prove the belief false. Wait, can't TRUE beliefs have deleterious consequences? Louis doesn't think so. There's the flaw! The only way Louis's argument could work is if you assume that only FALSE beliefs have deleterious consequences. That's ignoring the possibility that true beliefs could also have such consequences. Answer choice (A) looks perfect.

"People are more bad than good" and "society survives" are logical opposites? That doesn't ring true to me. In what sense are those logical opposites like "some" and "none" or "hot" and "not hot"?

Robert Carroll