I85PREP
⌘ K
QCAA Philosophy & Reason study materials
QCAA Philosophy & Reason study resources

QCAA Philosophy & Reason practice questions

One question at a time. Build your QCAA Philosophy & Reason understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

In a valid deductive argument, which relationship must hold between the premises and the conclusion?

  1. The premises are all true in the actual world.
  2. It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Correct answer.
  3. The premises make the conclusion probable to a high degree.
  4. The conclusion is supported by at least one empirical observation.

Explanation

Validity concerns the logical form of an argument, not the actual truth of its premises. An argument is valid when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, so no counterexample is possible. A valid argument may still contain false premises.

Question 2Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student argues: "Every philosopher we have studied wrote in a European language, so all philosophy is European in origin." Which fallacy does this argument commit?

  1. Equivocation
  2. Hasty generalisation Correct answer.
  3. False dilemma
  4. Circular reasoning

Explanation

The argument generalises from a limited and unrepresentative sample, namely the philosophers on a course reading list, to a universal claim about all philosophy. That leap from a small sample to an unrestricted conclusion is the defining structure of hasty generalisation.

Question 3Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which statement best captures the principle of charity in argument analysis?

  1. You should avoid criticising arguments that come from respected sources.
  2. You should interpret an opponent's argument in its strongest and most reasonable form. Correct answer.
  3. You should accept an opponent's conclusion whenever their premises are true.
  4. You should attribute weak reasoning to an opponent only when evidence supports it.

Explanation

The principle of charity directs interpreters to reconstruct an argument in the most plausible form available before evaluating it. This reduces the risk of refuting a straw version rather than the actual position. It does not require accepting the conclusion.

Question 4Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A necessary condition for a proposition to be knowledge is that it is true. What does this mean?

  1. If a person believes a proposition, then it is true.
  2. If a proposition is true, then somebody knows it.
  3. If a proposition is justified, then it is true.
  4. If a person knows a proposition, then that proposition is true. Correct answer.

Explanation

A necessary condition is one that must be satisfied for the target to obtain, so knowledge implies truth but truth does not imply knowledge. The formulation 'if knowing, then true' correctly expresses that implication. Truth alone leaves open whether anyone believes or knows the proposition.

Question 5Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which of the following is the best statement of the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge?

  1. A priori knowledge concerns abstract objects, while a posteriori knowledge concerns physical objects.
  2. A priori knowledge is gained independently of experience, while a posteriori knowledge depends on experience. Correct answer.
  3. A priori knowledge is innate, while a posteriori knowledge is learned from teachers.
  4. A priori knowledge is certain, while a posteriori knowledge is merely probable.

Explanation

The standard distinction turns on the source of justification: a priori justification does not rely on sensory experience, whereas a posteriori justification does. The distinction is about how knowledge is justified, not about its certainty or its subject matter. Innateness is a separate psychological thesis.

Question 6Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A utilitarian claims an action is right if and only if it maximises overall happiness. Which feature is essential to this version of the theory?

  1. The agent's intentions must be pure.
  2. Rights must never be overridden.
  3. The consequences for all affected parties must be considered equally. Correct answer.
  4. The action must follow a rule accepted by the community.

Explanation

Classical utilitarianism is an impartial consequentialist theory: it aggregates welfare across all affected parties without giving special weight to the agent. This impartial aggregation is what distinguishes it from egoism and from partialist views. Intentions and community rules are not the criterion of rightness.

Question 7Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

In a truth table, what does it mean for an argument form to be valid?

  1. The premises are all tautologies.
  2. There is at least one row in which all premises and the conclusion are true.
  3. The conclusion is a tautology.
  4. There is no row in which all premises are true and the conclusion is false. Correct answer.

Explanation

A truth table tests validity by searching for a counterexample row: premises true, conclusion false. If no such row exists, the form is valid. The other conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient for validity.

Question 8Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which question is a genuine ethical question rather than a merely descriptive one?

  1. What does the legislation actually require?
  2. Is it fair to impose this policy on future generations? Correct answer.
  3. What caused the policy to be introduced?
  4. How many people currently support the policy?

Explanation

Ethical questions ask for normative evaluation, such as whether something is fair, right, or justifiable. Descriptive questions ask about facts, causes, or existing attitudes. Only the fairness question calls for a normative judgement.

Question 9Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A speaker says: "You cannot trust her argument about animal welfare because she owns a pet shop." Which fallacy is committed?

  1. Begging the question
  2. Composition
  3. Ad hominem circumstantial Correct answer.
  4. Slippery slope

Explanation

The argument dismisses a claim by appealing to the speaker's circumstances rather than addressing the reasoning. Attacking a person's situation to undermine their argument is the circumstantial form of ad hominem. The merits of the argument remain unexamined.

Question 10Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A researcher observes that ice-cream sales and drowning rates rise together and concludes that ice cream causes drowning. What is the central methodological error?

  1. The correlation may be explained by a third variable such as hot weather. Correct answer.
  2. The conclusion is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.
  3. Drowning rates were measured rather than estimated.
  4. The sample size was too small to permit any inference.

Explanation

Correlation between two variables does not establish that one causes the other, because a common cause may drive both. Hot weather plausibly increases both ice-cream consumption and swimming, producing the observed association. Causal claims require ruling out such confounders.

Question 11Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

An argument has the form: If P then Q; Q; therefore P. Which statement about this form is correct?

  1. It is invalid because it affirms the consequent. Correct answer.
  2. It is valid because it uses a conditional premise.
  3. It is invalid because it denies the antecedent.
  4. It is valid because the second premise matches the consequent.

Explanation

Affirming the consequent treats a sufficient condition as though it were necessary. From 'if P then Q' and Q, P does not follow, since Q could be true for other reasons. The valid pattern is modus ponens, which affirms the antecedent rather than the consequent.

Question 12Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Descartes doubts the senses because they sometimes deceive us. How does this doubt function in his method?

  1. It shows that reason is less reliable than perception.
  2. It proves that the external world does not exist.
  3. It is a provisional tool used to find whether any belief is indubitable. Correct answer.
  4. It establishes that God is a deceiver.

Explanation

Descartes employs hyperbolic doubt methodologically, suspending judgement on anything that could conceivably be false. The aim is to locate a foundation that cannot be doubted, not to assert universal scepticism as a conclusion. The cogito is reached through this procedure.

Question 13Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student claims: "Abortion is wrong because it involves ending a potential life, and ending a potential life is wrong." What is the most direct challenge to this argument?

  1. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.
  2. The key premise about potential life is asserted without defence. Correct answer.
  3. The argument relies on empirical data that are disputed.
  4. The argument assumes the conclusion it is meant to prove.

Explanation

The argument's force rests entirely on the premise that ending a potential life is wrong, and that premise is stated without argument. A critic can therefore challenge the premise directly rather than the logical form. The structure itself is a valid modus ponens.

Question 14Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which feature distinguishes a deductive argument from a strong inductive argument?

  1. Inductive arguments are always invalid.
  2. Deductive arguments aim for conclusive support, while inductive arguments aim for probabilistic support. Correct answer.
  3. Deductive arguments concern mathematics, while inductive arguments concern science.
  4. Deductive arguments always have true premises.

Explanation

The core difference lies in the strength of support claimed: deduction aims for premises that guarantee the conclusion, whereas induction claims that premises make the conclusion more or less likely. Neither form guarantees true premises. Subject matter does not determine the form.

Question 15Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Hume argues that reason alone cannot motivate action. What role does he assign to the passions?

  1. Passions supply the ends that reason then serves instrumentally. Correct answer.
  2. Passions determine what is logically valid.
  3. Passions are identical with reason in their operation.
  4. Passions are irrational and should be eliminated.

Explanation

On Hume's account, reason identifies means to ends but cannot itself generate an end; desire or passion supplies the goal. Reason is therefore instrumental, calculating how to satisfy the passions. This is often summarised as reason being the slave of the passions.

Question 16Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A government claims a policy is legitimate because a majority voted for it. Which ethical theory most directly supports this reasoning?

  1. Procedural democratic theory Correct answer.
  2. Kantian deontology
  3. Divine command theory
  4. Ethical egoism

Explanation

Procedural theories locate legitimacy in the fairness of the decision process, such as majority voting, rather than in the content of the outcome. Kantian deontology would assess the policy against universalisable maxims, not majority support. Ethical egoism concerns individual self-interest.

Question 17Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A definition states: "Justice is whatever the ruling authority declares to be just." What is the main objection to this definition?

  1. It makes justice entirely dependent on power, so it cannot criticise unjust laws. Correct answer.
  2. It is a lexical definition that misuses the word 'justice'.
  3. It is too narrow because some rulers are benevolent.
  4. It relies on empirical evidence about rulers.

Explanation

If justice is defined by whatever the authority declares, then the concept can never be used to evaluate that authority's decrees as unjust. This collapses the critical function of the concept into mere power. That is the classic objection to purely positivist accounts of justice.

Question 18Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A scientist says: "This hypothesis is scientific because it is falsifiable." What does falsifiability require?

  1. There must be observable conditions that would show the hypothesis to be false. Correct answer.
  2. The hypothesis can be derived from a mathematical model.
  3. The hypothesis has already been shown to be false.
  4. The hypothesis is accepted by the majority of scientists.

Explanation

Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis specify in advance what observations would count against it. It does not require that the hypothesis has been falsified, only that it could be. This criterion is used to distinguish empirical claims from unfalsifiable ones.

Question 19Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student writes: "Either we ban all cars or we accept catastrophic climate change." Which criticism is most apt?

  1. The argument appeals to an irrelevant authority.
  2. The argument presents a false dilemma. Correct answer.
  3. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.
  4. The argument is circular.

Explanation

The statement presents two options as exhaustive when intermediate policies are available, such as restricting emissions or promoting public transport. This is the false dilemma pattern. The rhetoric is forceful but logically unsound as a disjunction.

Question 20Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

In a syllogism, the middle term is the one that appears in both premises but not in the conclusion. Why is its correct distribution important?

  1. It ensures the premises connect the subject and predicate of the conclusion. Correct answer.
  2. It ensures the argument is persuasive to an audience.
  3. It ensures the premises are all true.
  4. It ensures the conclusion is true in the actual world.

Explanation

The middle term is the bridge that links the two terms of the conclusion across the premises. If it is undistributed in both premises, no genuine connection is established and the syllogism is invalid. Distribution rules therefore protect the inferential link.

Question 21Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Gettier-style cases purport to show something about the traditional analysis of knowledge as justified true belief. What do they aim to show?

  1. Justification is irrelevant to knowledge.
  2. Knowledge does not require truth.
  3. Justified true belief is sufficient for knowledge.
  4. Justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. Correct answer.

Explanation

Gettier cases describe a belief that is justified and true but true only because of luck, so it seems not to count as knowledge. They therefore target the sufficiency of the justified-true-belief analysis. They do not show that justification or truth is unnecessary.

Question 22Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

An argument concludes that euthanasia is permissible because autonomy is valuable, and then adds that autonomy is valuable because people should control their own lives. What is the best assessment?

  1. The argument commits the naturalistic fallacy.
  2. The argument risks circularity by supporting the key premise with a restatement of it. Correct answer.
  3. The argument is a clear case of affirming the consequent.
  4. The argument is valid but unsound because the premise is false.

Explanation

The premise that autonomy is valuable is defended by an appeal to self-control that amounts to the same claim, so the reasoning moves in a circle. Circular support does not provide independent justification for the premise. A stronger defence would offer grounds distinct from the claim itself.

Question 23Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A compatibilist about free will holds that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible. Which move is central to that position?

  1. Asserting that determinism is false because we feel free.
  2. Denying that causes ever influence human behaviour.
  3. Claiming that moral responsibility is an illusion.
  4. Redefining freedom as acting according to one's own desires without external constraint. Correct answer.

Explanation

Compatibilists typically reinterpret freedom so that it concerns the source and quality of action rather than exemption from causation. Acting on one's own desires without coercion counts as free even under determinism. This preserves responsibility without denying causal determination.

Question 24Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A policy analyst argues: "Since each individual in the group has a right to free speech, the group as a whole has an unlimited right to broadcast on any frequency." Which criticism is strongest?

  1. It commits the fallacy of division.
  2. It commits the fallacy of composition and ignores conflicting rights. Correct answer.
  3. It relies on an ambiguous middle term.
  4. It is a valid deduction from individual rights.

Explanation

The inference moves from a property of individuals to a property of the collective, which is the composition fallacy. It also neglects that broadcast frequencies are limited, so individual rights may conflict with others' rights. The conclusion therefore does not follow and is independently implausible.

Question 25Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A metaethical non-cognitivist claims that moral statements express attitudes rather than beliefs. Which consequence follows most directly?

  1. Moral statements are reducible to natural facts.
  2. Moral statements can be straightforwardly true or false.
  3. Moral statements are meaningless because they express emotion.
  4. Moral statements are neither true nor false in the way factual claims are. Correct answer.

Explanation

If moral utterances express attitudes rather than beliefs, they lack truth-apt content of the kind factual assertions have. This is the central implication of non-cognitivism. It does not follow that such utterances are meaningless, only that they are not straightforwardly truth-evaluable.

Question 26Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

In a valid deductive argument, which relationship holds between the premises and the conclusion?

  1. The conclusion is more general than any premise.
  2. The premises are always true in the actual world.
  3. It is improbable that the premises are true and the conclusion false.
  4. It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Correct answer.

Explanation

Validity concerns the connection between premises and conclusion, not the actual truth of either. A valid form guarantees that if the premises were true, the conclusion could not be false. This is why validity alone does not establish that a conclusion is true.

Question 27Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which pair of terms correctly contrasts soundness with validity?

  1. Neither requires the premises to be true.
  2. Both require true premises and a true conclusion.
  3. Soundness requires true premises; validity does not. Correct answer.
  4. Validity requires true premises; soundness does not.

Explanation

A sound argument is valid and also has premises that are actually true. Validity by itself is only about the form of the inference, so a valid argument may have false premises. Soundness therefore adds a truth requirement that validity lacks.

Question 28Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student argues: "Every part of this machine is light, so the machine as a whole is light." Which criticism is most apt?

  1. It commits the fallacy of composition. Correct answer.
  2. It commits the fallacy of equivocation.
  3. It relies on an unreliable sample.
  4. It begs the question against materialism.

Explanation

The fallacy of composition infers a property of a whole from the property of its parts. Lightness of parts does not guarantee lightness of the assembled whole. The inference is invalid because wholes can have properties their parts lack.

Question 29Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A claim that can in principle be shown false by observation is described as which of the following?

  1. Normative
  2. A priori
  3. Falsifiable Correct answer.
  4. Tautological

Explanation

Falsifiability is the property of a claim that specifies what observations would count against it. This was central to Popper's demarcation of science from non-science. A claim that excludes no possible observation is not falsifiable.

Question 30Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which sentence expresses a normative claim rather than a descriptive one?

  1. We ought to reduce the prison population. Correct answer.
  2. The survey recorded attitudes to prison reform.
  3. Most prisoners are held in secure facilities.
  4. The prison population rose by twelve per cent.

Explanation

Normative claims prescribe what should be done and thus carry an evaluative 'ought'. Descriptive claims report how things are and can be checked by observation. Only the first option makes a recommendation about what ought to happen.

Question 31Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which feature is essential to a valid categorical syllogism?

  1. The middle term is distributed in at least one premise. Correct answer.
  2. Both premises are particular rather than universal.
  3. The conclusion repeats a premise word for word.
  4. The predicate of the conclusion appears in the major premise only.

Explanation

A syllogism is invalid if the middle term is undistributed in both premises, because the connection between subject and predicate is then unestablished. Distribution rules of this kind are standard tests of syllogistic validity. The other features are not requirements of validity.

Question 32Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A debater says: "My opponent's proposal must be wrong, because if we adopted it, we would eventually have to adopt every similar proposal." Which fallacy is being committed?

  1. Slippery slope Correct answer.
  2. Straw man
  3. Ad hominem
  4. False dilemma

Explanation

A slippery slope asserts that an initial step will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome without justifying the causal chain. The speaker assumes, without argument, that one proposal leads to all similar ones. The flaw lies in the unsupported escalation.

Question 33Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Kant's categorical imperative requires that we act only on maxims that we could will as universal law. What does this test primarily assess?

  1. Whether an action produces the greatest total happiness.
  2. Whether an action expresses a virtuous character trait.
  3. Whether a maxim is endorsed by the majority of rational agents.
  4. Whether a maxim can be consistently universalised without contradiction. Correct answer.

Explanation

The first formulation of the categorical imperative tests maxims for universalisability and for the contradictions that arise when they are generalised. This is a test of rational consistency in willing, not of consequences or popularity. It is therefore distinct from utilitarian and virtue approaches.

Question 34Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A naturalistic fallacy charge is raised against the claim that 'good' means 'whatever satisfies desire'. What is the core of that charge?

  1. It relies on empirical evidence that has not been replicated.
  2. It confuses a universal claim with a particular one.
  3. It defines a moral term using a non-moral property, which Moore held to be illegitimate.
  4. It derives an evaluative conclusion from purely descriptive premises. Correct answer.

Explanation

The charge is that identifying goodness with a natural property, such as being desired, wrongly treats an open question as closed. Moore held that we can always sensibly ask whether a desired thing is good, so the identification fails. This targets the definition of moral terms, not empirical reliability.

Question 35Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A compatibilist about free will typically argues that an action is free when it flows from the agent's own desires without external coercion. What does this move attempt to show?

  1. Freedom requires the ability to have acted otherwise in exactly the same circumstances.
  2. Determinism is false because we experience ourselves as choosing.
  3. Moral responsibility is an illusion that should be abandoned.
  4. Freedom is compatible with determinism because it concerns the source of action rather than the absence of causes. Correct answer.

Explanation

Compatibilists relocate freedom from uncaused choice to the causal source of action in the agent's own volition. On this account, determinism can be true while agents remain free and responsible. This is why the view rejects the need for contra-causal freedom.

Question 36Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student claims: "Either we ban all private vehicles or we do nothing about emissions." Which criticism best identifies the flaw?

  1. It draws a general conclusion from too few cases.
  2. It assumes that what is natural is good.
  3. It presents two extremes as exhaustive when intermediate options exist. Correct answer.
  4. It attacks a person rather than the argument.

Explanation

The argument offers a false dilemma by presenting two extreme options as the only possibilities. Intermediate policies such as efficiency standards are excluded without justification. The flaw is the falsely exhaustive disjunction.

Question 37Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Singer's argument about famine relief relies on a principle about distance and proximity. Which statement best expresses that principle?

  1. Assistance is supererogatory unless a legal duty requires it.
  2. If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it, regardless of distance. Correct answer.
  3. We owe duties only to those with whom we share a political community.
  4. Charity is praiseworthy only when it benefits our own community.

Explanation

Singer argues that moral duties do not weaken merely because the needy are geographically distant. If we can prevent serious harm at modest cost, the distance of the sufferer is morally irrelevant. This principle drives his conclusion about overseas aid.

Question 38Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

An argument states: "All citizens have a right to vote; therefore, the citizen body as a whole has a right to vote." Which criticism is most appropriate?

  1. It generalises from an unrepresentative sample.
  2. It rests on an ambiguous middle term.
  3. It moves illicitly from a property of individual members to a property of the collective. Correct answer.
  4. It assumes what it sets out to prove.

Explanation

The inference treats the collective as though it were an individual bearer of rights. Some properties distribute from members to groups, but rights held by individuals do not automatically transfer to the group. This is a composition-style error in the domain of rights.

Question 39Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A critic says a scientific theory is unscientific because it can accommodate any observation whatsoever. Which criterion is the critic invoking?

  1. Falsifiability, since no possible observation could refute the theory. Correct answer.
  2. Parsimony, since the theory posits too many entities.
  3. Testability, since the theory has not yet been replicated.
  4. Coherence, since the theory contradicts itself.

Explanation

A theory that accommodates every possible observation excludes none and so cannot be refuted. Popper treated this absence of potential falsifiers as a failure of scientific status. The objection concerns refutability rather than simplicity or replication.

Question 40Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student defines 'poverty' as 'having less money than most other people in one's society'. Which objection is strongest?

  1. It confuses correlation with causation.
  2. It relies on a definition that is too narrow to be useful.
  3. It makes poverty purely relative, so no one need be poor in an egalitarian society. Correct answer.
  4. It commits an appeal to authority.

Explanation

A purely relative definition ties poverty to the distribution of income rather than to unmet needs. On this account, everyone could be equally deprived and yet no one counted as poor. This suggests the definition omits an absolute component.

Question 41Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Hume's is-ought passage warns against deriving moral conclusions from purely factual premises. What does this warning imply for ethical argument?

  1. Facts about human nature are the only legitimate basis for ethics.
  2. Descriptive premises are always irrelevant to ethical reasoning.
  3. Moral conclusions can never be supported by any premises.
  4. A transition from descriptive premises to a normative conclusion needs independent justification. Correct answer.

Explanation

Hume observes that arguments often move from 'is' to 'ought' without explaining the transition. The point is that such a move requires justification, not that facts are useless. Ethical reasoning must supply the bridging normative premise.

Question 42Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A deductive argument has true premises and a true conclusion, but its form is invalid. What follows about the argument?

  1. It is inductively strong, because the conclusion is true.
  2. It is sound, because both premises and conclusion are true.
  3. It is not sound, because soundness requires validity as well as true premises. Correct answer.
  4. It is valid, because true premises cannot yield a false conclusion here.

Explanation

Soundness requires both validity and true premises, so an invalid argument fails the first condition regardless of the truth values involved. Truth of premises and conclusion can occur by coincidence in an invalid form. The argument therefore cannot be sound.

Question 43Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A theorist argues that moral judgements express emotions rather than beliefs. Which consequence follows for moral disagreement?

  1. Disagreement is impossible because emotions are private.
  2. Disagreement shows that moral realism is true.
  3. Disagreement can be resolved by empirical investigation alone.
  4. Disagreement is better understood as a clash of attitudes than as a conflict of factual beliefs. Correct answer.

Explanation

If moral judgements express attitudes rather than beliefs, then moral disagreement concerns conflicting attitudes. It is not primarily a dispute about which of two factual claims is correct. This is the expressivist's distinctive account of moral conflict.

Question 44Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Which question is a metaethical question rather than a normative ethical one?

  1. Should governments redistribute wealth?
  2. What does it mean to call an action morally right? Correct answer.
  3. Which virtues should parents cultivate in children?
  4. Is it ever permissible to lie to protect a friend?

Explanation

Metaethics examines the meaning, status, and epistemology of moral language and judgement. Normative ethics instead asks which actions, policies, or traits are right or good. Asking what moral language means is therefore metaethical.

Question 45Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A researcher notes that a policy was followed by improved outcomes and concludes that the policy caused the improvement. Which criticism is most apt?

  1. The inference ignores confounding factors that could explain both the policy and the outcome. Correct answer.
  2. The inference assumes that what is natural is good.
  3. The inference commits an ad hominem attack on opponents of the policy.
  4. The inference relies on an ambiguous definition of 'policy'.

Explanation

A correlation between a policy and an outcome does not establish causation, because other variables may have influenced both. A controlled comparison or further evidence is needed before the causal claim is warranted. The flaw is the neglect of confounders.

Question 46Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

Gettier cases challenge the analysis of knowledge as justified true belief. Which description best captures the structure of such a case?

  1. A belief is true and justified, yet its truth depends on luck rather than the justification. Correct answer.
  2. A belief is justified but false, so it cannot be knowledge.
  3. A belief is true but unjustified, and is therefore not knowledge.
  4. A belief is true and justified, and is therefore knowledge.

Explanation

Gettier cases present a justified true belief whose truth is accidental relative to the justification. The subject's evidence supports the belief, but the belief is true for reasons unrelated to that evidence. This is why such cases are thought to show that justified true belief is insufficient for knowledge.

Question 47Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A student objects that a proposed thought experiment is useless because it could never occur in reality. Which reply best defends the use of the experiment?

  1. It provides statistical evidence about how people ordinarily make judgements.
  2. It tests whether a concept depends on a feature by isolating that feature from confounding ones. Correct answer.
  3. It proves the conclusion by deducing it from self-evident axioms.
  4. It demonstrates that empirical science is unnecessary for ethics.

Explanation

Thought experiments work by varying a single feature while holding others fixed, so the role of that feature in a concept can be assessed. Their value does not depend on physical possibility. This is why imaginary cases can still inform conceptual analysis.

Question 48Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A relativist holds that moral judgements are true only relative to a culture. Which criticism is strongest?

  1. It denies that cultures ever disagree about morality.
  2. It struggles to explain how a reformer within a culture could be morally correct in opposing that culture's norms. Correct answer.
  3. It requires belief in a divine lawgiver.
  4. It implies that moral judgements are meaningless rather than relative.

Explanation

If truth is fixed by a culture's norms, then a reformer who opposes those norms is mistaken by definition. Yet moral progress often depends on exactly such dissent. This tension is a standard objection to simple cultural relativism.

Question 49Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

An argument's premises are individually plausible, and its conclusion follows only if a suppressed premise is added. Which method best evaluates the argument?

  1. Accept the argument because each stated premise is plausible.
  2. Rewrite the conclusion so that it matches the premises exactly.
  3. Reject the argument because an unstated premise makes it invalid.
  4. Identify the implicit premise and assess whether it is acceptable and sufficient. Correct answer.

Explanation

Many everyday arguments rely on unstated assumptions that must be supplied for the inference to work. Evaluation requires making that premise explicit and testing its acceptability. The argument is not automatically invalid simply because a premise is implicit.

Question 50Unit 3 (IA1: Examination - extended response)

A theory of justice is defended on the ground that it would be chosen behind a veil of ignorance. What is the methodological point of the veil?

  1. It ensures that principles are derived from empirical facts about society.
  2. It removes knowledge of one's own position so that principles are not tailored to personal advantage. Correct answer.
  3. It shows that justice is whatever the most powerful would choose.
  4. It guarantees that choosers will agree on a single conception of the good life.

Explanation

The veil of ignorance screens out information about one's talents, status, and conception of the good. This is intended to prevent bias toward one's own circumstances when selecting principles. The device is a test of impartiality, not a prediction of actual agreement.