PT49 S2 Q23 Forum

[vamos]

I'm not 100% sold on the correct answer. This argument is supposedly flawed because of its circular reasoning, but I'm having a little trouble grasping the circularity taking place. It seems to me like the flaw in the argument is a lack of evidence for the conclusion.

[tomwatts]

Well, there isn't a lack of evidence per se. The second sentence begins with, "As evidence of this." Everything after the first sentence is supposed to be evidence for the first sentence. However, the evidence seems already to be assuming the conclusion. It says that even with "all that" — that is, a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some action — then "we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred." But why not? Well, because human behavior cannot be fully understand without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons. Uh, but wait. That's the conclusion that we were trying to justify. This evidence is only legitimate evidence if the conclusion is already true. Well, drat. Circular.

[vamos]

Thanks again. When reviewing this question I found that I could diagram the stimulus.

C: Human Behavior Understood --> Nonphysical Aspects

P: ~Nonphysical Aspects --> ~Human Behavior Understood

In this case the premise restates the conclusion as its contrapositive, and thus presupposes what it seeks to establish.