Q13 - Historian: The ancient Greeks failed

[eagerlawstudent]

I was not able to understand the flawed reasoining used in this argument. Please explain. I want to understand why "D" is the right answer choice over "E." Thank you!

[noah]

Happy to help!

First step is to understand the given argument and its flaw.

The conclusion is that democracy is no a moral improvement over monarchy.

Why? Because it's wrong society to control government since it's wrong for an individual to control government, and society is just a collection of individuals.

This is a pretty tough argument to simplify, and would probably break down into a multi-part one (perhaps: wrong for indiv. to gov. --> wrong for collection of indiv. to gov. --> democ. just as bad as mon.).

But, it's easy to see that there's a problem somewhere between it being wrong for an individual to control the government and it being wrong for society to do it.

In everyday words, can we simply apply the moral code we use for individuals and apply that to society? Maybe a new set of rules comes into play. So, the argument is assuming that what applies to an individual must apply to the group.

(D) has that same issue. That argument assumes that if no individual can afford it, the group can't. Well, maybe there's a different set of considerations for the group! (Like pooled resources!)

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is tempting. There's an individual and a group. However, it's fundamentally different. For one, Robin's inability is used to conclude that a number of individuals, each one of Robin's friend, each has the inability. That's pretty subtle (and perhaps debatable), so let's find some more substantial reasons to eliminate! Another issue is that it isn't established that Robin cannot solve the problem - (A) just states "If Robin can't..." The original argument, as well as (D), establish a fact about an individual (it's wrong for an individual blah blah, and an individual can't afford...).

Furthermore, (A) has a different flaw than the original - just because Robin and Robin's friends can't solve a problem doesn't mean that there aren't other people who can! The conclusion is quite broad, but is based on evidence about an individual and a specific group of people.

(B) has no discussion of groups and individuals.

(C) is tempting because it has a similar topic as the original - morality. However, there is no reference to a rule or idea applying to a group because it applies to an individual. (C) extends a rule from one individual to other individuals.

(E) is tempting in that it involves a group and an individual, however the relationship is a bit "off" from the original. (E) has what does apply to a group (society being mistaken) being applied to individuals, which is the reverse direction of what we want. Plus, the conclusion is not strong enough - "does not guarantee" doesn't match the original "democracy is no improvement."

Tell me if that doesn't make sense.

[ym737]

could someone explain B again. I chose D because it makes more sense to me. But I can't tell why B is fundamentally wrong. a relay team is a group, and a group may function better than the individual added. Is it because the group is too small?

[maryadkins]

could someone explain B again. I chose D because it makes more sense to me. But I can't tell why B is fundamentally wrong. a relay team is a group, and a group may function better than the individual added. Is it because the group is too small?

(B) doesn't make the mistake of thinking the relay team has the same qualities as Hank. It just thinks Hank is a bad runner so he shouldn't be on the team. In fact, it assumes the team ISN'T like Hank—it's better off without him!

[cyt5015]

Shall we classify Part to Whole flaw into two subcategories as below?
1. certain individual v. all individual in that group
2. any individual v. that group
e.g. Tom v. all people
Any individual v. the society

However, I find it is difficult the classify the following question into either subgroup
PT28, 1, 3.
For any given ticket in a 1000-ticket lottery, it is reasonable to believe that that ticket will lose. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that no ticket will win.
If we say it belongs to the subset No.2, any ticket v. a group of ticket. However, a group of ticket cannot win, but one ticket in that group can win. I'm so confused, please help! Thank you.

edit: Or... that question has a different flaw like: small chance v. never, it has a small chance to win, but still has a chance certainly not never.

[maryadkins]

Shall we classify Part to Whole flaw into two subcategories as below?
1. certain individual v. all individual in that group
2. any individual v. that group
e.g. Tom v. all people
Any individual v. the society

I don't think so. It won't be this nuanced that you'd need different categories like this. Part to whole is just part to whole.

edit: Or... that question has a different flaw like: small chance v. never, it has a small chance to win, but still has a chance certainly not never.

Yes, good catch! The flaw here isn't that what is true for any ticket is true for the whole. It's that just because the odds are low for a ticket doesn't mean no ticket is going to win. In fact, one ticket IS going to win.