People cannot be morally responsible for things over which

Can't believe it I got it correct after reading the stimulus twice ....



Conclusion of the stimulus is -


Premises / Reason for the authors claim is -


Treatment received as an infant ( No control over the situation) ==leads to==> Treatment received as an adult.

Thus the author mentions that adults too have no control/moral responsibility for their treatment.

Hence among the given options only (E) fits in perfectly.

Ok, I understand that E is indeed a better answer but your reasoning is flawed. The thing is, logical opposites are fair game in CR questions, and they are often used in reading comprehension passages, too. You ought to check your assumptions. Anyhow, Thanks for taking the time to reply. +1 kudo

Original Explanation:

(E) One claim in the passage is that everyone will sometimes act in ways that are consequential to the treatment they received while an infant. Since the treatment was beyond that person’s control, so are the consequential acts. Therefore, all adults will sometimes do things (relating to when they were infants) for which they should not be held morally responsible. If everyone can disavow themselves of responsibility of atleast one action, then there is nobody who can be held responsible for all of his actions.

(A) Infants may perform actions that are not the consequence of treatment received. In those cases, the argument is silent as to responsibility.

(B) Similar to (A), this choice discusses the responsibility for actions that aren’t necessarily out of the individual’s control.

(C) The argument doesn’t necessarily support this point, stating that in some cases, determining adult control over treatment received is
difficult. Since nothing guides us as to when individuals who claim to lack control must take responsibility, this choice can’t be fully resolved.

(D) The argument is limited to discussing responsibility for actions beyond the person’s control. Nothing is said with respect to actions within control.

One doubt here, in E you are assuming that statement is talking about actions performed as an infant. But statement says "No adult should be held morally responsible for every action he or she performs". So it is not talking about actions performed in past but happening in present time.

The present tense "performs" is alright. The statement E is about the action of the adults in the present, not when they were infants.

The last line of the passage indicates that adults SOMETIMES acts in ways that are an inevitable consequently of treatment received as an infant and infants clearly cannot control. For those actions (performed in the present), the adults CANNOT be held responsible.

Since SOMETIMES the adults cannot be held responsible for their actions (performed in present but because of the treatment they received in the past), they should not be held morally responsible for EVERY ACTION they perform (option E).

Hi I don't see flaw in Divyadisha 's reasoning, as she is pointing out the mistaken negation(if A -> B, then if ~A -> May or may not be B) error that choice D has.

Divyadisha was not mistaken. If we have a conditional statement (A->B), then we can conclude its contrapositive (-B->-A), but not its simple negation or reversal (-A->-B or B->A), which are logically equivalent to each other. D is a mistaken negation, and not a "logical opposite." Also, we should be careful about falling for the trap of "Okay, that answer is the best, but mine is right, too." The four wrong answers are wrong. They aren't simply less compelling than the correct answer.

Umm so here is the deal,

A. Is essentially a restatement of the existing claim and hence when the question asks about further claims that the author has committed himself by the way of the aforementioned statement there is no answer in this statement, because the author clearly implicitly has already committed himself to this claim without any need for further inference.

B. This one while it surely makes sense that yes certain commonly performed actions may not be capable of being considered as morally responsible actions because of the fact that it might be a ingrained habit that the adult has gotten from the time they were an infant, may close attention to the fact that in the second last line the war use is "sometimes ", which implies that it is not a habit that is not a morally responsible action but rather maybe occasional acts, are these occasional act a habit ? we don't know and for that reason this answer choice while tempting is not the correct one.

C. There is no support in the passage for adult who claim that they are not to be held responsible for the treatment they reactive, the premise only stabilises that sometimes the treatment we receive is a consequence of the action the at we have performed and hence there might be a question of our own liability in the case of the treatment that we receive, not this statement talks about the liability of the same, but to establish the liability we have to establish that the actions that the person has performed was under his control. but as we come to know from the passage that might not always be the case hence we can not make any blanket statement as to whether actions by those who state that they have no control would actually be only because of the infant stage.

D. Again this is the same as A, this is a negation of the first statement of the premise and hence is a completely agreed upon idea and not an inference that the author would agree upon.

E. this is the right answer because, every action includes the actions that have been committed because of the fact that the person was indoctrinated a certain way when they were an infant and hence as per the author they should not be held morally responsible for the same.