gjg wrote:
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.
Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?
1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.
2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.
4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.
5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.
This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.
The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.
And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).
There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFIC
We have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.
Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:
(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion
(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument.
(C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.
(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption
(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway.
Please teach us how negation works in general, you made this difficult question answer in a very technical way to make us comprehend