Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. While the Philosopher does discuss violations of the law of nature, it doesn't state that engaging in an unnatural action violates those laws. In fact, she shows that they can't violate these laws, and so they must just be statistical anomalies.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point: People are morally obligated to act in a way when not doing so is unnatural

An unnatural action is either:
(1) A violation of the laws of nature, in which case it's impossible to do
(2) A statistical anomaly, but there's no reason not to do something just because it's not usually done
Therefore - The opposing point is absurd

Answer Anticipation:
At the highest level, the Philosopher's argument rebuts an opposing point, concluding that it's absurd. We'll need to explain how she rebuts it to reach that conclusion.

She starts by taking the topic of the opposing point—unnatural actions—and establishing that any such action falls into one of two categories. She then shows that one of the categories is actually impossible, and the other doesn't result in such an action being im- or amoral.

It's unclear how the correct answer is going to describe this method of reasoning, but it'll likely have something to do with defining a key term as having two possibilities, and then showing that each of them can't lead to the conclusion of the opposing point.

Answer Explanation:
While this answer doesn't encompass the entirety of the Philosopher's argument, it does describe "a technique" she uses, as the question stem asks. The Philosopher defines unnatural actions as actions that either violate the laws of nature or are statistical anomalies. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Look at this set of answer choices—some share a lot of concepts, and some describe elements of the argument (though in an incorrect way). Harder Methods of Reasoning questions will have a set of answer choices like this one, so be sure to really dig into each answer to ensure that you're not picking one that mischaracterizes an element of the argument!

Incorrect. "Using statistical findings" would require citing specific statistics that run counter to a claim. The Philosopher mentions the word "statistical," but not findings—rather, she uses it to discuss actions that aren't the norm.

Incorrect. Showing the claim to be self-contradictory would require showing that a moral action can't be natural. Instead, she shows that an unnatural action might be moral.

Incorrect. First, the Philosopher doesn't support one definition over another. Instead, she raises a definition with two "options" and shows that one is impossible, and the other doesn't lead to a specific conclusion. Second, she doesn't cite empirical evidence, which needs to be specific information that reflects reality—abstract statements won't cut it.