PrepTest 126

Incorrect. This answer concludes that an event was random, so we should look to the second principle. In order for the sufficient condition of it to be met, it would need to be established both that the event didn't have a specific motivation, and it isn't explainable by normal physical processes. The former condition is met, but the latter isn't, so this answer is wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
(1) Human action with specific motivation → Intentional
(2) not Specific motivation AND not Explainable by normal physical processes → Random

Answer Anticipation:
Must Be True (Principle) questions generally present us with two principles that allow for related judgments to be made. We need to diagram out these principles, get those related judgments into the necessary conditions, and then see which answer matches with one of them.

Luckily, the related judgments are already in the necessary conditions—these two statements let us conclude an action is intentional, or it's random. We should hop into each answer choice, identify the conclusion, and then see if the sufficient condition(s) of the relevant principle is (are) met.

Answer Explanation:
This answer concludes that an event was intentional, so we should look to the first principle. In order for the sufficient condition to be met, it would need to be established that the event was the result of a human action with a specific motivation. Ellis did have a specific motivation in mind when he acted, so the sufficient condition of that principle is met and the conclusion is justified. This is, therefore, the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Notice that a lot of these answers start to mix up the conditions in the two principles. This is why it's important to diagram out each and keep them clearly separated! Don't confuse the sufficient conditions of the two principles, and always refer back to your diagram after identifying the conclusion that the answer is reaching to remind yourself of what the sufficient conditions are for that conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer concludes that an event was intentional, so we should look to the first principle. In order for the sufficient condition to be met, it would need to be established that the event was the result of a human action with a specific motivation. And it can appear as if that's the case! However, heading back to the stimulus, we can see that there's an important shift here that invalidates this answer. The first principle, as stated in full, states that an event is intentional if "it is a human action" with a specific motivation. So the event itself must be the action performed with the specific motivation. Here, the event is the driver becoming distracted. That isn't a human action with a specific motivation—the human action with the motivation here is Judith's hailing of the cab. Therefore, this stimulus would allow us to conclude that Judith's hailing the cab was intentional, but it doesn't let us conclude that the driver becoming distracted was.

Incorrect. This answer concludes that an event was random, so we should look to the second principle. In order for the sufficient condition of it to be met, it would need to be established both that the event didn't have a specific motivation, and it isn't explainable by normal physical processes. The former is established, but the latter isn't (and we can assume that breathing is part of a normal physical process), so we can't reach the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer concludes that an event was intentional, so we should look to the first principle. In order for the sufficient condition to be met, it would need to be established that the event was the result of a human action with a specific motivation. While Henry dropping the wrench was a human action, it appears as if he wasn't motivated to do so, so the sufficient condition isn't met and we can eliminate this answer.