Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. The argument maybe tangentially speaks to one thing that could imply the value society places on individuality, but it's a stretch to say that this is the Ethicist's view.

Incorrect. The argument brings up the example of children being pushed to academic success as something that is not illegal, not something that is not objectionable.

Incorrect. The Ethicist doesn't contend that clones aren't subpeople, just that you don't have to be a clone to be an "extension of someone else's ego." Whether that makes them a subperson or not isn't discussed by the Ethicist.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Some: Clones would be subpeople who live to indulge the originals, so it should be banned.

Ethicist: People push their kids into athletics for the same reason, and that's legal, (so that argument isn't sufficient to ban cloning).

Answer Anticipation:
This Argument Structure question sees the Ethicist rebutting the argument of "[s]ome" who would ban cloning because it creates subpeople who would be exploited to serve the vanity of the "originals."

When the author of an argument rebuts an opposing point it's important to note if the rebuttal concludes that the opposing point hasn't established its conclusion or if it instead concludes that the opposing point's conclusion is wrong.

Here the Ethicist's statements focus on the reasoning behind the opposing point showing that in a situation with similar reasoning there isn't a ban. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a ban just that the reason provided by the opposing point doesn't justify it.

However the Ethicist never explicitly states that—instead it's implied by her statements. This argument falls into a category of very difficult questions where the conclusion of the argument is implied rather than explicitly stated.

As such the statement in question is support for an implicit conclusion—that the opposing point hasn't provided sufficient reasoning to ban cloning.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Ethicist's implied conclusion and describes the statement in question as support for it. The Ethicist believes that the conclusion reached by the opposing point isn't valid because it wouldn't hold in a similar case and so their reasoning isn't sufficient to ban cloning as they want to do.

Key Takeaway:
Some harder questions will feature arguments with implied conclusions—things that the argument is clearly building towards but never explicitly states. This features prominently in Main Point and Argument Structure questions so be aware of it in case you see a question that features this wrinkle!

Incorrect. The Ethicist in no way claims that pushing kids to excel in athletics or academics should be made illegal.