#9 - Cultural historian: Universal acceptance of scientific

[sarae]

Why is answer B correct vs. answer E?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi sarae!

So this is a Justify question that involves conditional reasoning.

The conclusion is the first sentence and can be diagrammed this way:
Humans regard themselves only as natural objects moral decline

The premises can be diagrammed like this:
Believe Responsible for Actions Ashamed moral decline

Answer choice B can be diagrammed like this:
Humans regard themselves only as natural objects Believe Responsible for Actions

Answer choice B justifies the conclusion by linking "Humans regard themselves only as natural objects" to the premise chain. So when you add the premises and B, you get the conclusion:
Humans regard themselves only as natural objects Believe Responsible for Actions
Believe Responsible for Actions Ashamed moral decline
---------------------------------------------------------
Humans regard themselves only as natural objects moral decline

Answer choice E doesn't prove the conclusion because it doesn't provide that link between the conclusion and the premises. In fact, E is almost a mistaken reversal of the conclusion:
Humans regard themselves only as natural objects moral decline

Hope this helps!

Kelsey

[sarae]

got it! thanks!

[glasann]

C felt attractive to me because it was basically my conditional diagram (the contrapositive of the original that
no responsibility—>not ashamed.) Is the issue with C the fact that it doesn't tie back to the wider concept of 'natural objects' cited within the conclusion?

thanks very much!

[Adam Tyson]

That's exactly right, glasann! Because answer C fails to connect the premise about " acceptance of scientific theories that regard human beings only as natural objects subject to natural forces" to the conclusion, it doesn't end up doing anything to prove the conclusion. In these Justify the Conclusion questions, our goal is to ensure that the premises, taken together with the correct answer choice, will ensure the truth of the conclusion. Close that gap!

[gmsanch3]

Hello, so I see why B is correct. I chose C for the same reason the previous student described. While I understand how justify questions should be answered premise plus answer equals conclusion, I didn’t think every premise needed to be considered to answer the question. I guess I’m confused about why we needed to connect the first premise to the answers. Sometimes the answers to justify questions are the contrapositives as previously mentioned by the other student. How will I know if/when this comes up again?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi gm,

The issue with answer choice C is that it doesn't fully prove the conclusion, because it doesn't refer to any part of this portion of the conclusion: "Universal acceptance of scientific theories that regard human beings only as natural objects subject to natural forces outside the individual’s control..." Nothing in the premises supports the idea that accepting such scientific theories, or viewing humans in this way (as natural objects), is somehow connected to believing you're responsible for your actions, or to feeling unashamed when you act immorally, or to widespread failure to feel ashamed of immoral actions. Without that tie-in to the premises, we have no evidence that such a view of humans leads to a decline in morality.

That phrase I quoted ("Universal acceptance of scientific theories that regard human beings only as natural objects subject to natural forces outside the individual’s control...") is what we call "new information" in the conclusion. What I mean by "new information" is specifically information in a conclusion that the premises don't refer to in any way. In every Justify question that has such "new information" in the conclusion, the correct answer choice MUST refer to some part of that new information. Without referring to it, the answer cannot fully prove the conclusion. Because answer choice C doesn't refer to any part of that new information, it cannot fully prove this conclusion.

Answer choice C is a tricky answer, because, as the contrapositive of one of the premises, it's a necessary assumption (if I believe a conditional statement, I MUST believe its contrapositive). So it would be the correct answer to an Assumption question. It's not the correct answer here, though, because without referring to the "new information" in the conclusion, the answer can't prove (can't "Justify") the conclusion.

I hope this helps!

[gmsanch3]

It does help. Thank you!