PrepTest 138

Incorrect. We're looking for an answer that establishes a situation where we should regard an action as freely performed to serve as a counterexample to Tolstoy's statement, and this answer about actions beyond one's control won't do that.

Incorrect. Responsibility isn't directly tied to an action being freely performed (one might not freely perform an action but be responsible for getting into the situation where they had to perform that action).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Justified in judging action → Know a lot about the events leading to it
Sometimes, we're justified in judging an action
Conclusion—Reject: Know a lot about the events leading to an action → not Regard action as freely performed

Answer Anticipation:
If you have a philosophy degree, you may understand what's going on. For the rest of us, we can luckily analyze the logic here without getting into a discussion of free will!

Let's start by figuring out what the conclusion actually means—what does it mean to reject Tolstoy's conditional claim? To show a conditional claim is wrong—i.e., to justify rejecting it—we need to show a counterexample to it. And a counterexample to a conditional statement shows a situation where the sufficient condition is met but the necessary condition isn't. If we say that all lawyers are rich (Lawyer → Rich), then to show this claim should be rejected, we must find a lawyer who isn't rich.

So if we're rejecting the claim that knowing a lot about the events leading to an action means we don't regard that action as freely performed, we need to find a situation where we know a lot about those events and still regard the action as freely performed.

The premises don't discuss actions being freely performed, but they do discuss knowing a lot about the events leading to an action. And we know that being justified in judging an action guarantees that we know a lot about the events leading to that action. So in order to make this situation serve as a counterexample to Tolstoy's statement, we need to know that being justified in judging an action also means that we regard that action as freely performed:

Justified in judging action → Regard action as freely performed

The stimulus notes that we are sometimes justified in judging an action. So there are some situations (those where we're justified in judging) where we know a lot about the events leading to an action, and if we also still regard those actions as freely performed, they serve as a counterexample to Tolstoy's statement, justifying the conclusion that we should reject it.

Answer Explanation:
Justified in judging action → Regard action as freely performed. This answer establishes the connection we anticipated. If being justified in judging an action guarantees both that we regard that action as freely performed and we know a lot about the events leading to that action, then there are actions for which both are true. Those actions serve as a counterexample to Tolstoy's general rule, thus leading to the conclusion that we must reject it.

Key Takeaway:
Rejecting a conditional statement means finding a counterexample—a situation where the sufficient condition is present without the necessary condition. While it's more common to need to think about this in a Cannot be True question, it can come up in an argument-based question, as it did here.

Incorrect. This answer brings in too many new ideas (responsibility, degree, inclination), so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is an illegal negation of Tolstoy's belief, but an illegal negation doesn't give grounds to reject that claim (a statement and its negation can both be true). What allows a conditional statement to be rejected is a counterexample—the sufficient condition being present without the necessary condition.