Question

In The New York Times, there is a column called “The Ethicist,” where some writer for the newspaper gives arguments in response to questions that are posed by readers. In the question below titled “Test Prep or Perp?,” Randy Cohen is the writer who gives an argument in reply to someone’s question about whether it’s ethical to use Adderall (the person’s name is withheld) to help take the L.S.A.T. (Law School Admission Test). I think that there is at least one statement in Cohen’s reply that could plausibly be interpreted as an intermediate conclusion. That is, there is at least one premise that Cohen attempts to support with another premise. Find this intermediate conclusion (It should only be one statement) and explain why you think it’s an intermediate conclusion. Also, what do you think of Cohen’s reply? An Example of Standard Form Premise: [Fill in this blank.] Intermediate Conclusion: [Fill in this blank.] Main Conclusion: [Fill in this blank.] Write out the word "Premise" and then state what it is, next to it. For this exercise, you only need to show one premise supporting the intermediate conclusion, even if there is more than one premise supporting the intermediate conclusion. There should be no indicator words like 'because' or 'so' in the statement. Write out the words "Intermediate Conclusion" and then state what it is, next to it.There should be no indicator words like 'because' or 'so' in the statement. Write out the words "Main Conclusion" and then state what it is, next to it. There should be no indicator words like 'because' or 'so' in the statement. Test Prep or Perp? By RANDY COHEN Published: September 30, 2007 The ... important question: is it ethical to use Adderall and the like, not in response to some malady, but to boost academic performance? For you to take what some call “study drugs” may violate the law, endanger your health, and if those pills are ineffectual, waste your money, but doing so does not offend ethics, at least in some classrooms. If there were a safe, legal, and effective pill that let you learn French in a day, you’d be mad (fou!) to shun it. You do not forswear studying by electric light because Lincoln relied on his fireplace. You need not reject a learning aid merely because it comes in convenient chemical form. Many a student uses coffee to gain extra study hours. Performance-enhancing drugs might give their users an unfair advantage over their unpilled peers. But academe does not exist on a level playing field. Deans, test-givers, and students themselves routinely accept greater inequities. Few who attend magnificent universities see this as an unethical edge over students at more modest colleges. Some students have parents who are lawyers, but nobody forbids those parents to help their kids learn. The equal-access problem would be solved if the health center handed out free Adderall to all. Until that utopia arrives, it might be heartening to realize that most students have easy, albeit illegal, access to these drugs. Some foes of these drugs call them academic steroids, arguing that, as on the football field, those who decline to take them—and thus avoid the attendant health risks—cannot compete with those who do. Arguments supporting the use of such drugs would be more persuasive if a university were essentially a contest for grades; it is not. Here is a more potent moral argument against these drugs: they undermine education itself and not just the drug-taker. This was what my daughter asserted when she was a student at a small liberal arts college. These are not so much study drugs as cramming drugs. They make you more adept at amassing facts but no more able to deeply engage with, for example, art or history. Also pernicious, by relying on rote memorization, you arrive at class unable to fully participate in the discussions that are central to learning, and thus fail in your duty to your fellow students, to your professors, to the academic community you voluntarily joined. She’s right. And so I must amend my conclusion, there is no ethical barrier to taking such drugs in classes that rely on individual work—math, Latin—but you may not take them in classes where you are expected to interact with your fellow students—political science, literature. But to prep for the LSATs? Go nuts.

Answer 1

Standard Form Premise: Study drugs may violate the law, endanger your health, and if those pills are ineffectual, then waste your money.

Intermediate Conclusion: They undermine education itself and not just the drug taker. They make you more adept at amassing facts, but no more able to deeply engage with art or history which require a greater level of participation in class rather than mere rote memorisation.

Main Conclusion: There is no ethical barrier to taking such drugs in classes that require individual work-maths, Latin- but you may not take them in classes where you are required to interact with your fellow students- Arts, political science, literature.