janxavier
Can someone plz tell me why not E?
The desire for praise is the desire to obtain, as a sign that one is good, the favorable opinions of others. But because people merit praise only for those actions motivated by a desire to help others, it follows that one who aids others primarily out of a desire for praise does not deserve praise for that aid.
Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly drawn?
(A) An action that is motivated by a desire for the favorable opinion of others cannot also be motivated by a desire to help others.
(E) It is the motives rather than the consequences of one's actions that determine whether one deserves praise for them.
Premise: Desire for praise is the desire to obtain favourable opinion of others
Premise: People merit praise ONLY for those actions motivated by a desire to help others.
Conclusion: One who aids others primarily out of a
desire for praise DOES NOT deserve praise for that aid.
Can you see the logical gap here?
What if a person had desire for praise AND desire to help others?
The conclusion can only be true if A holds true.
E says that it is the motives rather than the consequences. TRUE. But then with E as an assumption you can still find a logical fallacy that 'What if a person had desire for praise AND desire to help others'
Whereas with A being true. I cannot think of a logical fallacy.
Now let us say that it is the consequences rather than motives that determines bla bla bla.... (this is what you must have thought while picking E)
This destroys both the premises and the conclusion.
Whereas what we are asked here is to identify 'Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly drawn?'. That means premise being true, is conclusion true as well?
Negating the options must hurt the argument i.e. it must hurt the logical link between premise --> conlusion, and not both the premise and the conclusion.