- UID
- 1390765
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2019-3-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Based on the question stem, we know that this philosopher must presume one thing if his argument has to be air tight. So, all we have to do is to find the necessary assumption of the argument, and then simply find the of the " negate " version of the necessary assumption to see if the original argument could be destroyed.
P1: People are not intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies.
Inferences: If people live in the society is not large and bureaucratic, people must be intellectually well suited to live in.
C: People find happiness ---> Small political units such as villages.
let us combine the logic chains
( People can find the happiness ---> Small political units such as villages ---> People are intellectually well suited to live in. )
If ( A ---> B ---> C ) must be true, then 1. ( A --- > B ), ( B ---> C ), and ( A --- > C ) must also be true.
So, the author must be taking for granted that 1. ( A ---> No B ) or ( B ---> No C ) or ( A --- > C ) would 100% not happen.
1. ( A ---> No B ) => People can find the happiness at large, bureaucratic society
2. ( B ---> No C ) => People living in small political units such as village are not intellectually well suited to live in those village.
3. ( A ---> No C ) => If people are happy, People living in a small political units must be not intellectually well suited to live in those village.
Let us dive into the options
A. No any person can be happy living in a society where he or she is not intellectually well suited to live
( People can be happy, they must living in the society he or she is intellectually well suited to live )
If negated, it must be ( People can be happy, they must living in the society he or she is " not " intellectually well suited to live in )
Would not it looked like one of the listed 3 possible answers above ( A ---> No C ) ? Correct answer.
B. negate it => The primary purpose of small political units such as village is " not " to make people happy does not mean that people can not find happiness only in small village.
C. Negate it => If the society is not large, then it is plagued by excessive bureaucracy does not mean that " not large " must be small, and if " not large " could be other than " small ", then it does not really destroy the argument.
D. Negate it => People who lives in a village or other small political unit that is not excessively bureaucratic can " not " find happiness. This answer really look like a correct answer. However, the reason why it is wrong is because it does not really destroy the argument that " People can find happiness only if they live in small political units such as villages, since " is not excessively bureaucratic " still does mean " somehow bureaucratic " So, even though it is not big, as long as it is somehow bureaucratic, then people can't find happiness.
E. The fact that whether people be willing to live in village or not does not do not really refute the original argument. let us negate it " Everyone is not willing to live in villages or other small political units " . Ok, so ? It does not mean that you can't be happy.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-11-27 21:54:00
hilosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies. Therefore, people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units such as villages.
