Q12 - Undoubtedly, one's freedom is

[irenaj]

Could any one explain what does the stimulus trying to say?

I choose (c) by elimination and I don't think the example(consider a person locked in a cement room) in the premise has much to do with the general principle(one's freedom is always worth the risk) in the stimulus.

When I was reading the stimulus, the first flaw came to me is: the ambiguity about "risk/nothing to loose" and "life/not really living".

Anyone please help? Thanks in advance!

[timmydoeslsat]

The conclusion of this argument is:

"Undoubtedly, one's freedom is always worth the risk of losing one's life."

What a claim. I can't wait to see the powerful evidence to validly draw such a claim.

Evidence for this conclusion:

A person that is locked in a cement room with no chance of escaping. That person is not really living and has nothing to lose.

That is the very essence of an extreme case. We see that the conclusion is universal, "ALWAYS worth the risk"

Even if this was not an extreme case, we would more than likely have a problem going from a premise of a single thing to an "always" type of conclusion. The fact that this is an extreme case makes our job even easier.


The example is showing that when the person's freedom was taken away (nothing to lose---infer that this can be freedom), that he has no life.

This is a situation of ALL of someone's freedom being taken, whereas we could have a situation of just minor variations, such as no facebook after 11 PM. The example given to us is too extreme to justify that it is always the case that it is worth risking one's life.

In the situation given to us? Yes, I would risk my life.

Would I risk my life over no facebook after 11 PM? Not as of this moment.

[irenaj]

Thanks! I think I understand.

[laviandaniel74]

I don't understand y the answer's not B. I feel that the case is not applicable to the claim at all because if someone has "no hope of escape" then they have don'e even have the choice available to them of taking that "risk" for their freedom. It seems that the trapped man in the scenario physically doesn't have a choice to risk his life for his freedom. I thought that B articulated that idea very nicely.