Lesson test: The Consequence Argument

Sign in

Libre University uses your GitHub account. Signing in is only needed to sit a final test, so the score is kept on your profile.

The Consequence Argument

1.[2p]
What does $N p$ mean in the Consequence Argument?

$p$ is true and no one has, or ever had, any choice about whether $p$

Correct

$p$ is necessarily true

The answer is: $p$ is true and no one has, or ever had, any choice about whether $p$

$p$ is not up to nature

The answer is: $p$ is true and no one has, or ever had, any choice about whether $p$

$p$ would be false if anyone chose otherwise

The answer is: $p$ is true and no one has, or ever had, any choice about whether $p$

2.[3p]
Put the four steps of the derivation in order.

By rule alpha, $N ((P_{0} \land L) \to A)$
Determinism gives $Box ((P_{0} \land L) \to A)$
By the fixity of the past and the laws, $N (P_{0} \land L)$
By the transfer rule, $N A$

Show the answer

a, b, c, d

3.[3p]
Which are the premises a compatibilist could deny in order to escape the argument?

Select all that apply

The fixity of the past

Correct

The fixity of the laws

Correct

The transfer principle

Correct

The claim that people deliberate

The answer is: The fixity of the past, The fixity of the laws, The transfer principle

4.[3p]
What does Lewis accept and what does he deny?

That had he acted otherwise a law would have been broken beforehand, but not that he could break a law

Correct

That he could break a law, but not that the past would have been different

The answer is: That had he acted otherwise a law would have been broken beforehand, but not that he could break a law

Both the weak and the strong thesis

The answer is: That had he acted otherwise a law would have been broken beforehand, but not that he could break a law

Neither thesis, since he rejects the argument's conclusion outright

The answer is: That had he acted otherwise a law would have been broken beforehand, but not that he could break a law

5.[3p]
What did McKay and Johnson show about the original transfer rule?

It entails agglomeration, which has a counterexample

Correct

It is circular, since it assumes determinism

The answer is: It entails agglomeration, which has a counterexample

It is too weak to license the argument

The answer is: It entails agglomeration, which has a counterexample

It commits the scope error of the sea battle argument

The answer is: It entails agglomeration, which has a counterexample

6.[2p]
The coin counterexample destroys the Consequence Argument beyond repair.

True

The answer is: False

False

Correct

7.[3p]
How does the repaired transfer rule differ from the original?

It requires a strict entailment from $p$ to $q$ rather than a fact about the conditional

Correct

It drops the fixity of the laws

The answer is: It requires a strict entailment from $p$ to $q$ rather than a fact about the conditional

It applies only to acts, not to events

The answer is: It requires a strict entailment from $p$ to $q$ rather than a fact about the conditional

It replaces necessity with probability

The answer is: It requires a strict entailment from $p$ to $q$ rather than a fact about the conditional

8.[2p]
In which year did van Inwagen publish An Essay on Free Will?

CorrectNot quite: 1983

9.[2p]
What position does van Inwagen himself hold?

Libertarianism, while admitting that undetermined choice remains a mystery

Correct

Compatibilism, on the grounds that the argument fails

The answer is: Libertarianism, while admitting that undetermined choice remains a mystery

Hard determinism

The answer is: Libertarianism, while admitting that undetermined choice remains a mystery

Hard incompatibilism

The answer is: Libertarianism, while admitting that undetermined choice remains a mystery

1.[2p] What does Np mean in the Consequence Argument?

2.[3p] Put the four steps of the derivation in order.

3.[3p] Which are the premises a compatibilist could deny in order to escape the argument?

4.[3p] What does Lewis accept and what does he deny?

5.[3p] What did McKay and Johnson show about the original transfer rule?

6.[2p] The coin counterexample destroys the Consequence Argument beyond repair.

7.[3p] How does the repaired transfer rule differ from the original?

8.[2p] In which year did van Inwagen publish An Essay on Free Will?

9.[2p] What position does van Inwagen himself hold?

1.[2p]
What does $N p$ mean in the Consequence Argument?

2.[3p]
Put the four steps of the derivation in order.

3.[3p]
Which are the premises a compatibilist could deny in order to escape the argument?

4.[3p]
What does Lewis accept and what does he deny?

5.[3p]
What did McKay and Johnson show about the original transfer rule?

6.[2p]
The coin counterexample destroys the Consequence Argument beyond repair.

7.[3p]
How does the repaired transfer rule differ from the original?

8.[2p]
In which year did van Inwagen publish An Essay on Free Will?

9.[2p]
What position does van Inwagen himself hold?