Bunuel
Essayist: The existence of a moral order in the universe—i.e., an order in which bad is always eventually punished and good rewarded—depends upon human souls being immortal. In some cultures this moral order is regarded as the result of a karma that controls how one is reincarnated, in others it results from the actions of a supreme being who metes out justice to people after their death. But however a moral order is represented, if human souls are immortal, then it follows that the bad will be punished.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the essayist’s reasoning?
(A) From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized.
(B) The argument takes mere beliefs to be established facts.
(C) From the claim that the immortality of human souls implies that there is a moral order in the universe, the argument concludes that there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal.
(D) The argument treats two fundamentally different conceptions of a moral order as essentially the same.
(E) The argument’s conclusion is presupposed in the definition it gives of a moral order.
Claim - The existence of moral order in the universe depends on the human souls being immortal
Various forms/beliefs of moral order are outlined
Conclusion - However be the form/belief of moral order represented,
if the human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished -
So potentially, essayist is concluding that in order for the bad to be punished human souls should be immortalQuote:
(A) From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized.
This option reflects the structure we have outlined above.
From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order - This is the claim in the first sentence that human souls being immortal is necessary for the moral order.
that thing is sufficient - Human souls being immortal is sufficient(from the conclusion)
for an element of the moral order to be realized - for bad souls to be punished, which is one of the elemenst as per the definition of moral order in the first sentence. So Option(A) looks good
Quote:
(B) The argument takes mere beliefs to be established facts.
In the argument there are mere beliefs but nowhere are there any claims that these are facts. So Option(B) is out
Quote:
(C) From the claim that the immortality of human souls implies that there is a moral order in the universe, the argument concludes that there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal.
The first half is true, but nowhere does the argument conclude that
there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal. It just says that bad will be punished if the human souls are immortal. So Option(C) is out
Quote:
(D) The argument treats two fundamentally different conceptions of a moral order as essentially the same.
The argument does not compare the two conceptions of moral order. It just says human immortality is necessary for moral order of any kind. So Option(D) is out.
Quote:
(E) The argument’s conclusion is presupposed in the definition it gives of a moral order.
This may be tricky here. But if you watch the argument closely, I don't feel anywhere the argument presupposes the conclusion in the definition. But if you feel this may possibly be the case, keep Option(E).
Now between A and E, A clearly lines out the pattern/structure of the argument which clearly indicates a flaw in reasoning.
So A is the answer.
Hope it helps