tommywallach Wrote:Hey Michelle,
Great question here! Let's start by looking at the core:
Conclusion: If we know a lot about the events leading up to an action, we would not necessarily cease to see that action as freely performed.
Premise: When we know a lot about the events leading up to an action, we are justified in praising or blaming re: that action.
Notice the major assumption here. There is some attempt to link praise/blame to freedom of action. We need an answer choice that connects them in the right direction.
(A) This is actually the most dangerous trap answer, but it gets things backwards. It's not saying we can't praise or blame people for stuff beyond their control. It's saying that if stuff is beyond their control, they can't be praised or blamed.
(B) Responsibility isn't the issue here at all.
(C) Here's the assumption we were looking for. If knowing a lot leads to praise/blame, and if you can only praise/blame something that is free, then Tolstoy is wrong (knowing a lot would not lead to no freedom).
(D) Again, responsibility isn't actually the issue here.
(E) This only mentions freedom. It leaves out praise/blame entirely.
Hope that helps!
-t
charles.dj.kim Wrote:This looks exactly like the reasoning on question #25 of this section. But #25 says it is flawed reasoning. Can someone explain this please?
Thank you!
SahyunM196 Wrote:I understand the logic for this sufficient assumption question goes:
Premise:
Justified in praising or blaming a person for their action --> we know a lot about the events that led to an action
A --> B
Therefore
Conclusion:
We must reject Tolstoy's claim that,
If we know a lot about the events that led to any action --> We would cease to regard that action as freely performed.
We must reject B --> C (which translates to B --> ~C)
I am having difficulties understanding why the right answer is (c) A --> ~C
In my understanding, having the two premises A --> B and A --> ~C do not sufficiently lead to the conclusion B --> ~C
It's like saying Apple --> Fruit and Apple --> Not Blue; therefore Fruit --> Not Blue. But blueberries are blueberries for a reason...
tommywallach Wrote:Hey Michelle,
Great question here! Let's start by looking at the core:
Conclusion: If we know a lot about the events leading up to an action, we would not necessarily cease to see that action as freely performed.
Premise: When we know a lot about the events leading up to an action, we are justified in praising or blaming re: that action.
Notice the major assumption here. There is some attempt to link praise/blame to freedom of action. We need an answer choice that connects them in the right direction.
(A) This is actually the most dangerous trap answer, but it gets things backwards. It's not saying we can't praise or blame people for stuff beyond their control. It's saying that if stuff is beyond their control, they can't be praised or blamed.
(B) Responsibility isn't the issue here at all.
(C) Here's the assumption we were looking for. If knowing a lot leads to praise/blame, and if you can only praise/blame something that is free, then Tolstoy is wrong (knowing a lot would not lead to no freedom).
(D) Again, responsibility isn't actually the issue here.
(E) This only mentions freedom. It leaves out praise/blame entirely.
Hope that helps!
-t
Dang, this is a question. ..
ok.
Justified in praising/blaming action - > we know alot about events that lead to it
We DONT know alot about events -> We are not justified in praise/blame.
________________________________
Conclusion: we must reject idea that "IF Know Alot -> DON'T regard as performed freely" (contrapositive being "if we regard an action as performed freely -> we don't know alot about events leading up to it")
So now we're looking for a link between Knowledge, Freedom, and Praise.
A) mentions conditions beyond a person's control and praise/blame, but nothing regarding our knowledge of it (it's easy to assume that an observer has knowledge based on the wording, but it doesn't mention it).
B) I answered this (I distinctly remember my brain melting by this point) . It mentions genuine responsibility (which potentially links to freedom, but I think it's tenuous), and that that is NOT determined by how much the judging party knows about events leading up. This was tempting I guess, but it says there's no relation between knowledge and praise/blame, and we're trying to prove there IS some relation, just contradictory to Tolstoy's.
D) Talks about degrees, which I took to mean it was wrong because the stimulus doesn't mention it.
E) IDK why I said this was wrong, I think it confused me into just taking an educated guess, but reading it again, it seems to me that it just affirms the conclusion? It's mostly out of scope.
C) is the only answer that links Praise/Blame and Freedom, which are each linked to knowledge.
lukesand88 Wrote:Here's my two cents:
if you prefer to use the diagraming method, it would be something like this:
P: praising/blaming --> know a lot
C: we must reject: Know a lot --> action not freely performed.
Linking up the two conditionals gives you:
Praising/blaming --> know a lot --> action not freely performed
Praising/blaming --> action not freely performed.
this is what the conclusion rejects. to do this, you need to contradict this statement.
C gives exactly that: praising/blaming --> action freely performed.
Hope this helps.