If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content
Current time:0:00Total duration:4:19

Identify the technique | Worked example

Video transcript

so philosopher says or writes wolves do not tolerate an attack by one wolf on another if the latter wolf demonstrates submission by bearing its throat the same is true of foxes and domesticated dogs so it would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules so before I even look at the choices let's just dissect what this philosopher is saying it would be erroneous it would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules so the erroneous to make the conclusion that you need to deny animal rights so the conclusion the erroneous conclusion according to this author is denying deny animal animal right on and this is on the grounds that only human beings are capable so the premise and this is the erroneous premise and conclusion that according to this author so only only humans capable of moral rules of moral rules so I would call that the premise and what the author seems to be doing here is like hey look this premise is wrong it's not the fact that only human beings are capable more than he's giving examples wolves dogs foxes so let's look at the choices the philosophers argument proceeds by attempting to provide counter examples to refute a premise on which a particular conclusion is based well that's exactly what we just said so it doesn't always work out that nicely but it did this time where there's this conclusion on this premise he wants to refute the premise by giving on which this conclusion is based by giving counter examples this thing hey will seems like wolves and foxes according to him and dogs do have some type of moral rules so this is this looks like a pretty good choice so he's refuting this so he's refuting and he's refuting it with this first part of our little passage our little statement he refutes this premise which would then undermine if someone makes this conclusion from this premise they would able to make that conclusion if they're going off his premise so let's look at the other choices establish inductively that all animals possess some form of morality now he's just trying to give some examples of animals that he knows that at least he perceives to have morality to undermine this premise he's not making a case that ants and everything else must have some morality just by giving a few examples so this is not going to be this is definitely not going to be our choice cast doubt on the principle that being capable of obeying moral rules is a necessary condition for having rights so he's not attacking this premise conclusion he's not saying that well you need this premise you need to have moral rights in order to make this conclusion he's he's refuting anyone who goes through this logical chain right over here by refuting the premise so he's not casting doubt on the principle that being capable of obeying moral rules is a necessary condition for having right he's showing that hey there's some animals that have moral moral rules so let's rule this one out D establish a claim by showing that the denial of that claim entails a logical contradiction now he's not actually trying to establish a claim I mean it's starting to feel that he's trying to by saying it looks like this is someone who would argue for animal rights but he's really just trying to undermine someone else's claim someone else's claim to deny animal rights so he's not trying to establish his own or she's not trying to establish her own provide evidence suggesting that the concept of morality is often applied too broadly no it's in fact the philosophers I think trying to get to a place that's the opposite trying to assume that's too narrowly applied only the humans he's making a case or she's making a case that hey or starting to make a case that this you know some logic for applying it only to human to denying it to animals is false so this is definitely not going to be the case we're going to feel good about picking a