LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningMedium
A philosopher argues: 'Since it is impossible to definitively prove the existence of free will, we must conclude that free will does not exist.'\n\nThe philosopher's argument is flawed primarily because it:
- ARelies on an appeal to emotion rather than logical reasoning.
- BConfuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
- CFails to consider that the inability to prove something does not automatically prove its non-existence.
- DAssumes that what is true for one concept must be true for all concepts.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Fails to consider that the inability to prove something does not automatically prove its non-existence.
The philosopher commits the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy by concluding that because the existence of free will cannot be proven, it therefore does not exist. The absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. There is no emotional appeal in the argument presented.
- B. The argument doesn't deal with necessary/sufficient conditions in this manner.
- D. This describes a different type of fallacy, such as a hasty generalization.
Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam)
A fallacy in which a proposition is claimed to be true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true.
- Lack of evidence is not evidence itself.
- Often seen with unobservable phenomena (e.g., God, aliens).
- Shifts the burden of proof improperly.
Memory trick: No map doesn't mean no treasure; it means you haven't found it yet.