Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCircular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

Neuroscientist: Some philosophers argue, based on recent brain imaging studies, that human free will is an illusion. They claim our choices are entirely determined by subconscious neural processes that occur before we are consciously aware of making a decision. But these philosophers are incorrect. Human beings do indeed possess genuine free will, because the capacity to make truly autonomous choices independent of deterministic antecedent neural conditions is a fundamental attribute of the human mind.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the flaw in the neuroscientist's reasoning?

  1. It presumes the truth of the conclusion that it is attempting to establish.Answer
  2. B
    It takes a necessary condition for the existence of free will as a sufficient condition for proving its existence.
  3. C
    It directs its attack against a subsidiary conclusion of the philosophers' argument rather than their main conclusion.
  4. D
    It ignores the possibility that subconscious neural processes might be compatible with autonomous decision-making.
  5. E
    It infers a causal relationship between neural processes and human choices based solely on a temporal correlation.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument presumes the truth of the conclusion that it is attempting to establish.
The neuroscientist's argument concludes that humans possess 'genuine free will' based solely on the premise that the 'capacity to make truly autonomous choices...' (which is the definition of free will) is a 'fundamental attribute of the human mind' (which means humans possess it). Because the premise merely restates the conclusion in different and denser words, the argument presupposes the truth of what it is trying to establish, making it entirely circular.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the neuroscientist's argument.
The main conclusion is: 'Human beings do indeed possess genuine free will.'
This is the primary claim the neuroscientist is attempting to prove in direct opposition to the philosophers' position.
2
Identify the premise provided to support this conclusion.
The sole premise is: 'the capacity to make truly autonomous choices independent of deterministic antecedent neural conditions is a fundamental attribute of the human mind.'
This clause, directly following the word 'because', contains the only logical support offered for the neuroscientist's conclusion.
3
Analyze the semantic relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
The premise defines what free will is ('capacity to make truly autonomous choices...') and asserts humans have it ('is a fundamental attribute...'), which is logically identical to asserting 'humans possess free will'.
Evaluating how the premises conceptually map to the conclusion is necessary to spot structural flaws, especially disguised circularity.
4
Determine the logical flaw based on this relationship.
Because the premise simply restates the conclusion in denser terminology without providing any independent empirical or logical evidence, the argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
An argument that assumes what it sets out to prove is circular and 'begs the question'.

Key Concept

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

More questions from this topic