Q18 - Ethicist: Many environmentalists hold

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Principle Conform (which principle matches the reasoning?)

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Arguing for the preservation of nature on the basis of BEAUTY will be stronger against objections thatn arguing on the basis of MORAL VALUE.
Evidence: It's undeniable that nature is beautiful; it's disputable whether nature is morally valuable.

Any prephrase?
The "because" indicated where to find the premise, and it indirectly shows us the conclusion. We need a bridge idea that sounds something like "if X is undeniable while Y is debatable, then argument based on X is less vulnerable to objection then an argument based on Y."

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) This has the conclusion half right, but the premise half is about AVOIDING the issue of why we should preserve nature. That's not a match.

B) The conclusion half of this doesn't match at all.

C) The premise half matches somewhat, but the conclusion half doesn't match.

D) This doesn't match the premise half, nor the conclusion half.

E) Yes! This matches the premise half and the conclusion half.

Takeaway/Pattern: When they ask us to choose which principle best conforms to / justifies the argument, we're just looking for an "if premise, then conclusion" bridge idea. So ultimately these questions come down to visualizing the "if, then" structure of each answer and seeing if we can make the rule get triggered by the premise and deliver us to the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[Raiderblue17]

Can somebody explain this to me? I picked A but don't see what i Should be looking for

[timmydoeslsat]

This argument can be shown like this:

Nature can be regarded as worth preserving on the fact that people find it beautiful.

It is disputable whether nature is morally valuable.

It is not disputable whether nature is beautiful. It is beautiful.

Argument for preserving nature that emphasizes nature's beauty will be less vulnerable to logical objections than the moral value argument.


We are not trying to pick a justifying principle, rather we want an answer choice that conforms to the stimulus.

A) The less vulnerable (less open to logical objections) one in this case is the beauty argument. However, even this argument talks about the issue of what makes nature worth preserving, its beauty! Eliminate. It does not conform.

B) Does not provide sufficient reason? Even if one is more vulnerable to objection does not mean that it is not sufficient. Eliminate.

C) Not conforming at all. Nothing about one argument being less/more vulnerable than the other.

D) Nothing about less/more vulnerable.

E) This works.

If argument appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a basis for preserving nature and it is not disputed (beauty) ---> Argument is less vulnerable

[maryadkins]

Great breakdown.

One clarification though is that when you're asked to find a principle that "conforms" to the stimulus, you CAN think about it as finding a principle that justifies (or underlies) the argument. Think about it in this case--(E) supports the Ethicist's argument. Once we take (E) as true, this (weird) argument is super bolstered.

[phoebster21]

I'm still not really sure what is wrong with A. I see why E is right but can anyone provide a more thorough answer for eliminating A?

Is it because it's too broad? It's not that ANY argument in favor of preserving nature will be less open to logical objections, but rather, an argument that emphasizes X (beauty) over Y (more value) will be less open to objections?

Also, A says "if it AVOIDS the issue of what makes nature worth preserving" but technically the CONCEPT of "beauty" IS an issue of what makes nature worth preserving (it's just an undeniable one) . so the answer is wrong to say we should avoid ANY issue of what makes nature worth saving.

Also, since I'm not an official student, I know NO instructors will respond, so im open to NON instructors and other genuinely kind people.

P.s. does anyone know if non-students somehow don't get to see more recent posts per forum? it feels like for EVERY question I see, the last response is from 3 years ago... Just wondering if there are more updated comments that are simply denied to non students.

[maryadkins]

Hi Phoebster21!

You should be able to see all of the posts here on the forum, including the most recent. If you're only seeing older ones, that's because no one has posted on the thread since that date. And as to your proposed explanation for why (A) is wrong:

Also, A says "if it AVOIDS the issue of what makes nature worth preserving" but technically the CONCEPT of "beauty" IS an issue of what makes nature worth preserving (it's just an undeniable one) . so the answer is wrong to say we should avoid ANY issue of what makes nature worth saving.

...you're exactly right. The argument is about why nature is worth preserving. The point of the stimulus is that one particular argument based on a certain reason for WHY nature is worth preserving (beauty) is a stronger than another possible argument for why it's worth preserving (morality). So (A) doesn't match.

[bho.check]

Would E then work if we were required to justify the conclusion? Since E is a conditional that connects the two premises to the conclusion in such a fashion (conditional), I would assume that if the question were to ask about justifying the conclusion, E could also do that. Am I off the mark here?

[CCHOL308]

(E) An argument for preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a basic for preserving nature and that philosophically indisputably belongs to nature.

I have two interpretations for this sentence

1. An argument is not accepting logical objections because the objections have characteristic of ~~~~

2. An argument is less vulnerable to logical objections because the argument has the characteristic of ~~~~

Could you tell me which one is the correct interpretation and why the other is incorrect? I appreciate your help!