Essayist: The existence of a moral order in the universe—i.e., an orde

Question

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.

Gokul20 · Answer

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 immortal

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

In the argument there are mere beliefs but nowhere are there any claims that these are facts. So Option(B) is out

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

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.

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

SudhanshuC · Answer

Answer A 
 
  1st sentence

If there is a moral order in the universe such that bad is always eventually punished and good rewarded, then human souls are immortal. 
 ( The moral order depends on the immortality of souls - they're necessary ).

Last sentence

If human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished. 
 This is a mistaken reversal   (sufficient replaced by necessary and vice versa).

C - Wrong

As per this option, the conclusion of the argument is reversed. 
 Actual conclusion is - If human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished (= moral order is present).

egmat · Answer

The Core Flaw:   Necessary vs. Sufficient Confusion

Breaking Down the Argument:

What the essayist states: 
"A moral order  DEPENDS UPON  human souls being immortal"
→ This means: You  cannot  have a moral order  without  immortal souls
→ Immortal souls are  NECESSARY  for a moral order

What the essayist concludes: 
" IF  human souls are immortal,  THEN  bad will be punished"
→ This means: Having immortal souls  guarantees  punishment
→ Immortal souls are treated as  SUFFICIENT  for punishment

The Logical Error:

The essayist  flips necessary into sufficient  - a classic flaw!

Simple Analogy: 
• "You need flour to make bread" (flour is  necessary )
• But having flour doesn't automatically give you bread! (flour isn't  sufficient )

Same logic applies here:
• Immortal souls may be  needed  for a moral order to exist
• But that doesn't mean immortal souls  alone guarantee  the moral order will function

Why (A) is correct: 
(A) states exactly this: the argument assumes that because something is  necessary  to a moral order, it must be  sufficient  for an element of that order (punishment) to occur.

Why other choices fail: 
•  (B)  - The argument doesn't treat beliefs as facts; it reasons hypothetically about what  would  follow
•  (C)  - This describes a different conditional error not made here
•  (D)  - Acknowledging different conceptions isn't the flaw in the conclusion
•  (E)  - The conclusion isn't hidden in the definition; the error is in the logical leap

Answer: A

Essayist: The existence of a moral order in the universe—i.e., an orde

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Essayist: The existence of a moral order in the universe—i.e., an orde

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards