Q16 - Philosopher: An event is intentional

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Example

Stimulus Breakdown:
Human action performed with specific motivation --> Intentional.
No specific motivation and not explainable by normal physical processes --> Random.

Answer Anticipation:
We can expect that some answer choices will try to prove that something is "Intentional" and others will try to prove that something is "random". Any answer that tries to prove something is "not intentional" or "not random" is automatically wrong, since these provided rules do not let us prove the negative ideas. To prove "random" we need to establish two things, so it's likely that trap answers will give us one criterion but not the other.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Trying to prove "random" but we did NOT get both criteria. The keys remaining on the counter could be explainable by physics.

(B) Yes! Trying to prove that "tearing the envelope was intenional" requires that we know that "a human tore open the envelope on the basis of a specific motivation". Ellis tore the envelope on the basis of a specific motivation to read the contents he assumed were inside.

(C) To prove "becoming distracted was intentional" we need to know that Judith "became distracted on the basis of a specific motivation". We do not know that. She hailed on a cab on the basis of a specific motivation.

(D) Trying to prove "random", but they did not tell us that "her breathing is not explainable by normal physical processes".

(E) To prove that "dropping the wrench was intentional" we need to know that Henry "dropped the wrench on the basis of a specific motivation", but this answer choice does not provide that fact. This answer should have smelled funny, since it was trying to prove 'intentional' but it was using one of the criteria from the rule for 'random'.

Takeaway/Pattern: When we have two rules to go off of, I start reading each answer choice by scanning for whether we're using rule 1 or 2 (i.e. Is this argument trying to prove 'intentional' or 'random'?) That way, I can quickly remind myself of what idea or ideas need to be established.

#officialexplanation

[chike_eze]

Correct Answer = (B)
Question type: Apply rule

1) Human action + specifically motivated --> Intentional event

2) NOT specifically motivated + NOT explainable by normal physical process --> Random event

B) Ellis's action + specific motivation --> intentional

A) Tarik's action + not specific motivation --> Random. Wrong. Condition missing "not expl. physical process"
C) Judith's action + specific motivation --> driver intentional. Wrong. Judith's action is intentional, not driver's action.
D) Yasuko's action.. not specific motivation. No rule applied
E) Henry's action + normal physical --> intentional. Wrong. Condition missing, i.e., "specific motivation"

[noah]

Strong explanation! A few edits below, in bold

Correct Answer = (B)
Question type: Principle matching

1) Human action + specifically motivated --> Intentional event

2) NOT specifically motivated + NOT explainable by normal physical process --> Random event

B) Ellis's action + specific motivation --> intentional

A) Tarik's action + not specific motivation --> Random. Wrong. Condition missing "not expl. physical process"

C) Judith's action + specific motivation --> driver intentional. Wrong. Judith's action is intentional, not driver's action.

D) Yasuko's action.. not specific motivation --> random. Wrong. This is explainable by normal physical process.

E) Henry's action + normal physical --> intentional. Wrong.
Condition missing, i.e., "specific motivation"

[yuriarc]

First time poster, long time reader.

Quick question in regards to "A) Tarik's action + not specific motivation --> Random. Wrong. Condition missing "not expl. physical process"

I'm having a hard time understanding why A is wrong. I understand clearly why B is correct, but is A incorrect because it makes absolutely no mention of the "explainable by normal physical processes" condition that has to be met before something is considered "random"? Thanks for the reply!

[noah]

I'm having a hard time understanding why A is wrong. I understand clearly why B is correct, but is A incorrect because it makes absolutely no mention of the "explainable by normal physical processes" condition that has to be met before something is considered "random"? Thanks for the reply!

Welcome yuriarc!

You figured out why (A) is wrong. Nice work.

One adjustment: it's not that something has to meet the not-explainable-by-physical-processes test to be called random, it's that we know that if it passes that test and is not performed on the basis of a specific motivation, it must be random. There may be other ways to get to random. Basically, your language about the condition has you treating a sufficient condition as a necessary one.

[sengdykes]

"Any answer that tries to prove something is "not intentional" or "not random" is automatically wrong, since these provided rules do not let us prove the negative ideas. To prove "random" we need to establish two things, so it's likely that trap answers will give us one criterion but not the other."

Why is it that we cannot prove the negative ideas of the rules? Can't the contrapositive of a conditional statement always be determined?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, contrapositives can always be written, but then the idea on the right side travels to the left side, where it becomes a TRIGGER, not a CONSEQUENCE.

Given:
If you deceive someone, then you lied.
(Deceive --> Lie)

Contrapositive:
If you didn't lie, then you didn't deceive someone.
(~Lie --> ~Deceive)

Do either of these rules allow you to prove that someone did NOT lie?

You were suggesting the contrapositive would allow us to prove that someone didn't lie, but the contrapositive says
IF you know that someone didn't lie, THEN you can prove that they didn't deceive anyone.

Conditional rules always work from left to right like that. A conditional rule NEVER lets you prove the left side idea. It ONLY lets you prove the right side idea.

Say I tell you:
"If you're in the city of Rimdor, then you're in the country of Crathia."

Does that rule give you any way to prove that someone is NOT in the country of Crathia?

If I tell you,
Bob is not in the city of Rimdor

Can you prove,
Bob is not in the country of Crathia?

Of course not. Maybe Bob is in some other Crathian city.

[mswang7]

Motivation -> Intentional
Not performed on motivation & not explained by normal processes -> Random

A. No motivation -> Random, but can keys on kitchen counter be explained by normal processes? Absolutely. This breaks the second requirement of a "random" action so it cannot be considered random
B. Ellis has motivation -> intentional. yes
C. There are 2 events here. Judith hailing a cab & a distracted driver. Judith act was intentional but there philosopher did not say that acts caused by intentional acts are also intentional.
D. Similar logic to A, No motivation -> random, however breathing, a human action, can indeed be explained by normal physical processes so this fails the second criteria.
E. This doesn't give us any triggers above (we aren't explicitly told if henry had motivation or not in dropping the wrench despite wanting to make the leap that this is unintentional)