PrepTest 133

Incorrect. First, the argument presents it as a concession, not a conclusion, so there's no proof offered—it's presented as true. Second, since it's a part of the opposing argument (even if the author agrees with it), the Ethicist isn't attempting to justify it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point - Someone who doesn't want to do wrong doesn't deserve praise for doing right
Conclusion - That's wrong
Concession - Resisting the desire to to wrong is considered especially virtuous
Rebuttal - Killing all desire you have to do wrong is just as virtuous

Answer Anticipation:
The Ethicist starts her argument by saying that it would be a mistake to reach a certain conclusion, so she's implying an opposing point with which she disagrees. And since this opening line is an opinion of an (implied) opposing point, it's likely the main point of the argument. The fact that it's followed by a statement that starts with "for" strengthens that determination, as "for" introduces a premise that supports what was stated before it.

What is the premise to support the conclusion that a certain view is mistaken? Well, before we get the Ethicist's premise supporting that contention, we get a concession made to the opposing point. When a statement starts with "Although" (or "While"), that statement is something that the argument is conceding is true despite it being aligned with an opposing point, but it's not enough to prove that point.

Here, that statement is aligned with the opposing point. That viewpoint says that not wanting to do wrong means you don't deserve praise for doing right; the concession shows that overcoming a desire to do wrong is considered especially virtuous. However, the argument then pivots ("they are . . . no less virtuous") to the support for the Ethicist's conclusion.

The statement in question is the concession to the opposing point, but since the author feels the concession is true but the conclusion is mistaken, she must believe it's insufficient to prove that point. Let's find that as an answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the role of the statement in question. It's a concession to the opposing point that the author agrees is true while being insufficient to prove that point, thus allowing for the Ethicist to conclude that the view is mistaken.

Key Takeaway:
Concessions—usually introduced by "While" or "Although"—are points that an argument concedes to an opposing point while believing they're insufficient to prove that point.

Incorrect. The author accepts that view as true, so she can't view believing it as an impediment to having an adequate conception of virtue.

Incorrect. Since it's a concession the author makes to the opposing point, it's not something that the author views as false. It's something she agrees is true while still being insufficient to prove the opposing view.

Incorrect. A concession serves as evidence for the opposing point—just insufficient evidence. While an argument can use that same premise to reach an opposing conclusion (in fact, using the same premises to reach different conclusions is a common Method of Reasoning in two-speaker questions of that type), that doesn't happen here, as the author pivots from that statement to her premise.