"Physicalists" expect that ultimately all mental functions will be explainable in neurobiological terms. Achieving th...

Emil-Kunkin on March 3, 2022

Hi Medasmx,

This is indeed a tough cookie of a question. This argument is quite flawed, and I agree that the right answer choice does not exactly match how I would have expected it to be framed.

The argument proceeds by introducing a goal of the physicalists (sentence one), and stating that three things are necessary to achieve this goal (sentence two). The author then tells us that the first of the three necessary conditions has been filled in the third sentence, and then that the third of the three necessary conditions has been filled (sentence 4). The author then concludes that since the two things are true, that the goal of the physicalists is bound to be achieved in the near future.

There are actually two flaws here. The first flaw is that the author mistakes necessary conditions for sufficient conditions. We are told that the goal required three things (knowledge of neurons, knowledge of how they interact, and delineation of faculties). However, the author argues that since we have met our necessary conditions, the outcome is guaranteed to happen. This is a sufficient and necessary flaw.

However, there is another glaring flaw. We were told that we needed three necessary conditions, yet the author only notes two- they say nothing about our knowledge of how neurons interact.

The author fails to give us all three of our necessary conditions, although even if they had included information about interactions, the argument would still be flawed in that it mistakes necessary for sufficient. When the flaw you initially identify is not in the answer choices, it wouldn't hurt to go back and check if there is an additional flaw in the argument as there was here.