« on: September 30, 2008, 12:35:11 PM »
We're told in the argument, that a nervous system is necessary for experiencing pain, so that is not an assumption (an unstated premise) on which the argument depends.
In the passage, we're told that we cannot mistreat plants. The reason why we cannot mistreat plants is because plants do not experience pain.
Let's say there were organisms that did not experience pain, but still could be mistreated. (The negation of choice "D") If there were organisms that did not experience plain but still could be mistreated, then it's no longer true that we can not mistreat plants simply because they do not experience pain. (The conclusion of the passage). A plant might be an organism that does not experience pain, but could still be mistreated.
In other words, for it to be true that we cannot mistreat plants simply because they do not experience pain, it also must be true that only organisms that experience pain can be mistreated.
so you can use the assumption negation technique on the AC's for justify questions? how would it be applied- the same way as assumption questions? you just look for the AC negated that would destroy the concl?