Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardIdentifying Sufficient Assumptions

Some environmentalists argue that ecosystems possess intrinsic moral standing. However, attributing intrinsic moral standing to an entity requires that the entity possesses a subjective experiential perspective—that is, it must be capable of consciously experiencing well-being or suffering. Because ecosystems are decentralized networks of interactions rather than unified, sentient beings, they lack this capacity. Therefore, the preservation of ecosystems can only be ethically justified on the basis of their instrumental value to sentient creatures.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. The preservation of an entity that lacks intrinsic moral standing can be ethically justified only on the basis of its instrumental value to sentient creatures.Answer
  2. B
    If the preservation of an ecosystem provides instrumental value to sentient creatures, then that preservation is ethically justified.
  3. C
    An entity's lack of intrinsic moral standing does not preclude its preservation from being ethically justified.
  4. D
    No decentralized network of interactions can ever be considered a unified, sentient being.
  5. E
    Any entity that lacks intrinsic moral standing is incapable of consciously experiencing well-being or suffering.

Answer

The statement asserting that for entities lacking intrinsic moral standing, instrumental value to sentient creatures is the exclusive ethical justification for their preservation.
To guarantee the conclusion, we need to bridge the gap between the intermediate conclusion ('ecosystems lack intrinsic moral standing') and the main conclusion ('the preservation of ecosystems can only be ethically justified on the basis of their instrumental value to sentient creatures'). The correct statement acts as a perfect conditional bridge: if an entity lacks intrinsic moral standing, its preservation can only be justified by its instrumental value. Since ecosystems lack intrinsic moral standing, the conclusion necessarily follows.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The preservation of ecosystems can only be ethically justified on the basis of their instrumental value to sentient creatures.
This is the final claim that the author is attempting to prove, signaled by 'Therefore'.
2
Identify the premises and intermediate conclusion.
Premise 1: Intrinsic moral standing (IMS) requires a subjective experiential perspective (SEP). Premise 2: Ecosystems lack SEP. Intermediate Conclusion: Ecosystems lack IMS.
Breaking down the argument's structure reveals the established facts and the logical chain leading up to the logical gap.
3
Identify the logical gap between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion.
The argument establishes that ecosystems lack intrinsic moral standing, but jumps to a conclusion about what can justify their preservation.
A sufficient assumption must logically connect the end of the premise chain (lacking IMS) to the new concept introduced in the conclusion (exclusive justification via instrumental value).
4
Formulate the sufficient assumption.
If an entity lacks IMS, its preservation can only be justified by its instrumental value to sentient creatures.
Adding this conditional statement to the intermediate conclusion yields the main conclusion with 100% logical certainty.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumptions (Bridging Intermediate Conclusions)
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions

More questions from this topic