agglomeration wrote:Having some trouble with this stupid LR question. Looked at some other boards but couldn't find a satisfactory explanation. Question is PT 64 S1 23. Its the Ethicist "Marital Vows/Love as a feeling" sufficient assumption question. Can someone help walk me through this one in their thought process? Also, if any of you are "diagram heavy" LR'ers could you show me how you diagrammed it too? This is the only question i got wrong in that section and it's annoying me i can't figure it out.
here's a bit of my though process.
LF= love feeling
PS= Promise makes sense
Ok so i stop the diagramming isn't looking like it'll work. Re-read. I see "control" a lot in the premises but not the conclusion. Love is everywhere but is also the focal point. So maybe connect those two. Not sure. Screw it answer choices.
A) no because this is merely a restating of one of the premises (feelings are not within one's control)
B) Looks good. If promising to do something makes no sense, then we shouldn't do it. But this doesn't feel great.
C) (i choose)- since i couldn't figure out the answer before hand and after going through and eliminating i was still kinda stumped, it made me think this was one of those weird sufficient questions where the answer is kinda like a necessary assumption question. So this looks good. If love can't be taken to refer to something other than feelings, then the argument would fall apart.
D) (correct answer- but i eliminated)- I eliminated it because it says "should not be interpreted" when the conclusion is about "those making marital vows." Hmm. If i'm making the marital vow, i'm not interpreting it. The person i'm saying it too is interpreting it. Ok eliminate.
E) Eliminate because it's kind of a premise booster.
Any help? Thanks!
Went to PT 64 s1 23 and it wasn't this question lol. That was dec 2011 right?
Ok found it, was 1 test too far lol. Anyway, this is how I broke it down in my head.
Premise 1. Ppl make marital vows to love each other forever.
Premise 2. Love can be interpreted as a feeling
Premise 3. No1 has control over feelings
Premise 4. Makes no sense to do something that 1 has no control over.
Conclusion. Shouldn't interpret love as a feeling when promising to love forever.
Well, what's missing between all those premises and the conclusion? My thought going into the questions was can I get a link between something not making sense should not be interpreted that way.
Answer choice D says exactly that, so I was happy. Hope that helped. And hope I didn't violate any rules while breaking that down.
EDIT: something I like doing is also seeing why all the answers were wrong.
A) restates premise
B) tempting, but the conclusion is about interpreting love a certain way.
C) also tempting, and would be the correct answer if the conclusion was something like "so love should be interpreted as something else". However it's not necessary for it to be something other than a feeling for this conclusion to be true
E) restates a premise