PrepTest 93+, Section 3, Question 22
Philosopher: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational. But emotion is not nonrational: it only seems that way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion. The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience—excitement, calm, joy, and so on. Thus, for example, there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.
Philosopher: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational. But emotion is not nonrational: it only seems that way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion. The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience—excitement, calm, joy, and so on. Thus, for example, there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.
Philosopher: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational. But emotion is not nonrational: it only seems that way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion. The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience—excitement, calm, joy, and so on. Thus, for example, there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.
Philosopher: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational. But emotion is not nonrational: it only seems that way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion. The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience—excitement, calm, joy, and so on. Thus, for example, there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the philosopher's argument by the proposition that there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another?
It is an example of the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
It is a specific instance illustrating a general claim, thereby indirectly supporting the conclusion.
It is a concession to the view that the argument seeks to refute.
It is the explanation proposed for the phenomenon the argument seeks to explain.
0 Comments