Q26 - Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Analyze Argument Structure (Procedure)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: You can't deny animals rights based on the idea that only human beings can obey moral rules.
Evidence: (Wolves, foxes, and dogs can obey moral rules) They will not tolerate attacks on submissive wolves/dogs/foxes.

Answer Anticipation:
The common answers for Procedure questions are these: analogy, counterexample, implications of logic, define a term, make a distinction, alternate interpretation, rule out other possibilities. It looks like this one provides examples of animals, other than humans, who are capable of obeying rules in order to shoot down a type of argument. Be careful, the author does NOT say that animals DO have rights. She only says you can't argue against them having rights by saying that "they can't follow moral rules". They CAN follow moral rules, as demonstrated by the wolf/fox/dog example.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This works! The philosopher's conclusion is calling a certain argument erroneous. This is the argument: "Conc: Animals don't have rights. Prem: Only human beings can obey moral rules." The author provides the wolf/fox/dog example to demonstrate that other animals CAN obey moral rules. So those ARE counterexamples that refute a premise. We can tell that "only humans can obey moral rules" is a premise because it's prefaced by the phrase "on the grounds that".

(B) The author is never establishing that ALL animals have morality, just that AT LEAST SOME nonhuman animals do.

(C) This principle WAS being assumed in the argument that the philosopher is fighting. But the philosopher doesn't push back against that assumption. Instead she pushes back against the actual explicit premise.

(D) This refers to a conceptual argument, rather than one that provided a specific example. Because the provided example refutes (contradicts) the opponent's premise, it might be tempting to see the words "logical contradiction". The author's conclusion is not trying to "establish a claim". Instead, it's trying to "reject an argument". This answer choice describes this type of argument: "Claim X must be true. After all, if claim X were false, it would mean that claim Y is false. And claim Y must be true."

(E) If anything, our author provides evidence that the concept of morality should be applied MORE broadly (i.e. NOT to only humans, but to some nonhuman animals as well)

Takeaway/Pattern: These Describe questions are just "if it matches, it's right", so we just have to be comfortable matching up the abstract terminology in the answer choices with the specific ideas in the argument. "Refuting a premise" or "denying the truth of the opponent's evidence" is almost always a TRAP answer on these, but in this case it was appropriate.

#officialexplanation

[yahoo]

This question is too confusing! Can someone explain? Thanks!

[aileenann]

Sure thing!

First, let's take a look at how the argument is working. I'd put it into my own words as followings:

In cases where a wolf (or a dog or a fox) demonstrates submission by baring its throat, wolves (and other animals) do not tolerate an attack on that animal by its peer. So it would be wrong to limit the rights of animals if you are going to base it on the idea that only humans follow moral rules.

Do you see what the gap in the logic is? There is at least one, which is that there is not necessarily any connection between the data the author gave us and the morality - there's a gap. I'd be mindful of that if this were an assumption question.

Now let's look at the actual question. It's basically asking us to describe the argument. Let's keep an open mind as we look at the answer choices.

(A) seems alright - we definitely have counterexamples - those are the animals showing presumably that it's not just humans who have morality. I'll leave this for now.

(B) is *way* too strong. The argument is not making any claim about "all animals".

(C) is tempting because it has a lot of the language we are looking for, but in fact the argument isn't trying to cast doubt on this sort of rationale. It's not clear whether the author is saying morality should have nothing to do with rights, but what is clear is he's saying that rationale won't work in this particular case.

(D) is out too - I don't see any contradictions in here, do you?

(E) is also out of scope - the argument is not about morality at such a broad level.

So we'd be smart to go with the correct answer, (A), even if it doesn't fully make sense (and that would be the most time efficient way to tackle it).

Still, let's go back and inspect it in more detail. I'd say the reason (A) should match up is that the author is indeed using the examples of animals to refute the evidence that only humans have morality. Such evidence that only humans have morality is in turn used (by others, not by the author) to justify taking away the rights of animals. It's this quashing of rights for this particular reason that the author seeks to call into question.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have follow up questions

[porsupuesto3798]

I think the reason C is wrong is that it misrepresent the argument.
Philosopher is claiming that "Because only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules, animals have no rights." is wrong.

The principle is:
Animal having rights --> human beings are not the only kind of being that are capable of obeying moral rules.

The answer choice is like:
Having rights --> Being capable of obeying moral rules, which is different from the principle in the stimulus.

Therefore it is wrong.

[joseph.m.kirby]

I missed this problem originally; however, now I understand why.

(C) is attractive but wrong. Within the scope of this argument, it cannot be proved that the philosopher is trying to disprove or undermine the principle.

What we can prove is that the philosopher is using the principle so as to point out that, within the logic of the principle, animals cannot be denied rights.

(A) is correct. The philosopher provides counterexamples (wolves, foxes and domesticated dogs) to refute a premise (only humans are capable of obeying moral rules) on which a particular conclusion (it would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights) is based.

[zhupon]

"What made this one hard for me (and why I didn’t pick A and instead picked C) is that I don’t think that not attacking someone who bars their throat is a MORAL rule."

I don’t think it’s fair to assume that wolves not tolerate an attack to a submitted wolf necessarily shows that wolves are capable of obeying moral rules; it may well be from their nature to not attack a surrendered fellow rather than from the abeyance of a moral principle. If this is true, maybe C is correct in that capable of obeying moral rules isn’t necessary for having rights; animal nature would also do. Any thoughts? Thank you!

[uhdang]

Fell into a "wrong track of logic" for this question on D), so I really had to sit down and write down a thought process for this. Since nobody really got into D), let me give it a shot.

D) says,
" establish a claim by showing that denial of that claim entails a logical contradiction "

When I analyze this statement word by word,

establish a claim (= it would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights; essentially a conclusion)
by showing that denial of that claim (= NOT erroneous to deny that animals have rights)
entails a logical contradiction. (meaning whatever statement implying " Animals DO in fact have right)

The philosopher obviously did not make a statement contradicting animal's having right. What he did was to provide a counter example for the premise, which is signaled by "on the ground that", and presented in A). This is why D) is incorrect.

I have mistaken this logical contradiction to mean a contradiction on a premise. Once my brain has identified a contradiction in the stimulus and saw a word contradiction in D), it was stuck there and created a misleading path on my thought process. Now, I have fixed that path

I welcome any feedback, especially a critical one.

[liza.robles]

Can someone please explain how a premise is being refuted as stated in answer (A)? I viewed the problem as using premises to refute the conclusion not another premise. This is what made me reconsider other answer choices and reject this one.
Thanks!

[ngkrich]

Can someone please explain how a premise is being refuted as stated in answer (A)? I viewed the problem as using premises to refute the conclusion not another premise. This is what made me reconsider other answer choices and reject this one.
Thanks!

Hi Liza,

So feel free to correct me anyone if I am wrong. To me, there is no premise being refuted. This is tricky, but if you read the stem it states "The philosopher's argument proceeds by attempting to"

So to me at least, that means that he is in an argument with another party, and we do not have the background of what the other party said. However, based on his response, most notably the use of "so it would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules" gives us the context that the other speaker has made some sort of premise or conclusion that animals are incapable of obeying moral rules and thus undeserving of rights. If the answer had stated that it was refuting the conclusion of another person, I would have still selected the same answer. As you can attack a premise to dismantle and argue a point or attack a conclusion directly when there is an error in reasoning.

At least, that was how I thought of it when reaching the conclusion.

[atzhang6v6]

I'm still not sure about D...
I think what D says is correct but maybe what makes D wrong is the part "by showing"?
The stimulus does not actually "show" the denial.
"If" people deny the conclusion, it does lead to contradiction, but the stimulus does not actually "deny" the conclusion...
Is this understanding correct?