Deck 4: Representing Arguments in Standard Form

Question 1

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: "Is death bad for the one who dies?
No) After all, something is bad for you only if you exist when it happens. But, you do not exist when you are dead."

A) 1) You do not exist when you are dead
2) Death is not bad for the one who dies
So, something is bad for you only if you exist when it happens
B) 1) Something is bad for you only if you exist when it happens
2) Is death bad for the one who dies?
So, death is not bad for the one who dies
C) 1) Is death bad for the one who dies?
2) No.
So, you do not exist when you are dead.
D) 1) Something is bad for you only if you exist when it happens
2) You do not exist when you are dead
So, death is not bad for the one who dies

Answer 1

1) Something is bad for you only if you exist when it happens
2) You do not exist when you are dead
So, death is not bad for the one who dies

Question 2

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: "A being has moral rights only if it makes sense to hold it accountable for its choices and praise or blame it, in moral terms, for those choices. Thus, non-human animals do not have moral rights, since it makes no sense to hold them morally accountable for the things they do."

A) 1) A being has moral rights only if it makes sense to hold it accountable for its choices and praise or blame it for those choices
2) It makes no sense to hold non-human animals accountable for their choices So, non-human animals do not have moral rights
B) 1) A being has moral rights only if it makes sense to hold it accountable for its choices and praise or blame it for those choices
2) Non-human animals do not have moral rights
So, it makes no sense to hold non-human animals morally accountable for the things they do.
C) 1) Non-human animals do not have moral rights
2) A being has moral rights only if it makes sense to hold it accountable for its choices and praise or blame it for those choices
So, it makes no sense to hold non-human animals morally accountable for their choices
D) 1) A being has moral rights if it makes sense to hold it accountable for its choices
2) It doesn't make sense to hold non-human animals accountable for their choices So, non-human animals should not be praised or blamed for what they do.

Answer 2

1) A being has moral rights only if it makes sense to hold it accountable for its choices and praise or blame it for those choices
2) It makes no sense to hold non-human animals accountable for their choices So, non-human animals do not have moral rights

Question 3

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: "Parkinson's Disease, like every other disease, must be caused either by inherited genetic factors or by environmental factors. Examples of inherited diseases are sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington's disease. Examples of environmentally caused diseases are skin cancer and lead poisoning. The evidence is strong that there is, in most cases, no inherited cause of Parkinson's. (One especially strong piece of evidence: it appears to be the case that the children of parents with Parkinson's are no more at risk of developing the disease than are people in the general population.) Given this evidence, we can conclude that Parkinson's is caused by environmental factors."

A) 1) Examples of inherited diseases are sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington's disease
2) Examples of environmentally caused diseases are skin cancer and lead poisoning.
3) Children of parents with Parkinson's are no more at risk of developing the disease than are people in the general population
So, Parkinson's Disease, like every other disease, must be caused either by inherited genetic factors or by environmental factors
B) 1) Examples of environmentally caused diseases are skin cancer and lead poisoning.
2) Parkinson's Disease, like every other disease, must be caused either by inherited genetic factors of by environmental factors.
So, Parkinson's Disease is caused by environmental factors.
C) 1) Parkinson's Disease must be caused either by inherited genetic factors or by environmental factors.
2) Parkinson's Disease is not caused by inherited genetic factors. So, Parkinson's Disease is caused by environmental factors.
D) 1) Children of parents with Parkinson's are no more at risk of developing the disease than are people in the general population.
2) Parkinson's Disease, like every other disease, must be caused either by inherited genetic factors of by environmental factors.
So, Parkinson's Disease is caused by environmental factors.

Answer 3

1) Parkinson's Disease must be caused either by inherited genetic factors or by environmental factors.
2) Parkinson's Disease is not caused by inherited genetic factors. So, Parkinson's Disease is caused by environmental factors.

Question 4

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: "If something doesn't care about its own interests, then there is no
Reason for the rest of us to extend it moral consideration. So, non-conscious organisms (such as plants, mushrooms, microbes, and oysters) don't deserve our moral consideration, since they don't care about their own interests."

A) 1) Non-conscious organisms don't deserve moral consideration.
2) Non-conscious organisms don't care about their own interests.
So, if something doesn't care about its own interests, there's no reason for the rest of us to extend it moral consideration.
B) 1) If something doesn't care about its own interests, there's no reason for the rest of us to extend it moral consideration.
2) Non-conscious organisms don't care about their own interests. So, non-conscious organisms don't deserve moral consideration.
C) 1) If something doesn't care about its own interests, there's no reason for the rest of us to extend it moral consideration.
2) Non-conscious organisms don't deserve moral consideration. So, non-conscious organisms don't care about their own interests.
D) 1) If something doesn't care about its own interests, there's no reason for the rest of us to extend it moral consideration.
2) Plants, mushrooms, microbes and oysters are non-conscious organisms. So, non-conscious organisms don't deserve moral consideration.

Question 5

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: If something exhibits goal-directed behaviors, then it is possible to benefit or harm it. And, if it is possible to benefit or harm something, then its interests deserve moral consideration. Furthermore, all living things exhibit goal-directed behavior. (Every living thing strives, grows, procreates, and so on. All of these count as goal-directed behaviors.) That's why all living things deserve moral consideration

A) 1) If something exhibits goal-directed behaviors, then it is possible to benefit or harm it.
2) If it is possible to benefit or harm something, then its interests deserve moral consideration.
3) All living things exhibit goal-directed behavior. Therefore, all living things deserve moral consideration.
B) 1) All living things deserve moral consideration.
2) If it is possible to benefit or harm something, then its interests deserve moral consideration.
3) All living things exhibit goal-directed behavior
So, If something exhibits goal-directed behaviors, then it is possible to benefit or harm it.
C) 1) Every living thing strives, grows, and procreates.
2) Striving, growing and procreating are goal-directed behaviors Thus, all living things exhibit goal-directed behaviors
D) 1) If something exhibits goal-directed behaviors, then it is possible to benefit or harm it.
2) If it is possible to benefit or harm something, then its interests deserve moral consideration.
3) All living things deserve moral consideration.
Therefore, all living things exhibit goal-directed behavior.

Question 6

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: It's possible to care about the well-being of something for its own sake only if that thing has interests. And something has interests only if it exhibits goal- directed behavior. Ecosystems do not exhibit goal-directed behavior. Therefore, an ecosystem is not the kind of thing whose well-being we can possibly care about for its own sake.

A) 1) An ecosystem is not the kind of thing whose well-being we an possible care about for its own sake.
2) Something has interests only if it exhibits goal-directed behavior.
3) Ecosystems do not exhibit goal-directed behavior.
So, it's possible to care about the well-being of something for its own sake only if that thing has interests.
B) 1) It's possible to care about the well-being of something for its own sake only if that thing has interests.
2) Something has interests only if it exhibits goal-directed behavior.
3) An ecosystem is not the kind of thing whose well-being we an possible care about for its own sake.
So, ecosystems do not exhibit goal-directed behavior.
C) 1) It's possible to care about the well-being of something for its own sake only if that thing has interests.
2) Something has interests only if it exhibits goal-directed behavior.
So, an ecosystem is not the kind of thing whose well-being we an possible care about for its own sake.
D) 1) It's possible to care about the well-being of something for its own sake only if that thing has interests.
2) Something has interests only if it exhibits goal-directed behavior.
3) Ecosystems do not exhibit goal-directed behavior.
So, an ecosystem is not the kind of thing whose well-being we an possible care about for its own sake.

Question 7

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: It is incredible to me that people continue to tolerate such an obviously rights-violating institution as the modern system of taxation. No clear-thinking person could deny that taxation violates our rights. After all, taxation is a form of slavery. Lest you think I'm speaking metaphorically, allow me to disabuse you of that confusion.
Slavery is forcing someone to work for no pay; taxation confiscates the pay people would have received if there were no taxation. It's literally the same thing. Slavery, obviously, is a rights violation. So, too, is taxation.

A) 1) Taxation is a form of slavery
2) Slavery is a rights violation
So, it's incredible to me that people continue to tolerate such an obviously rights- violating institution as the modern system of taxation.
B) 1) Taxation is a form of slavery
2) Taxation is a rights violation So, slavery is a rights violation
C) 1) Slavery is a rights violation
2) Taxation is a form of slavery So, taxation is a rights violation
D) 1) No clear-thinking person could deny that taxation violates our rights
2) Slavery is forcing someone to work for no pay
3) Taxation confiscates the pay people would have received if there were no taxation
So, taxation is a rights violation.

Question 8

Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument in the passage:
The passage: Some people claim that the institution of taxation is the same thing as the institution of slavery. These people are wrong. Slavery is, fundamentally, the claim of one person or group to own another person or group of people as property. A system of taxation does not involve anyone claiming another person or group as property-it claims that people should contribute some portion of their income to the common good. Institutions that are based on fundamentally different claims cannot be the same institution.

A) 1) A system of taxation does not involve anyone claiming another person or group as property.
2) Slavery is the claim that one person or group owns another person or group. So, taxation is not the same as slavery.
B) 1) Slavery is based on the claim that one person or group owns another person or group.
2) Taxation is not based on the claim that one person or group owns another person or group.
3) Institutions that are based upon fundamentally different claims cannot be the same thing.
So, taxation is not the same thing as slavery.
C) 1) People who think taxation is the same thing as slavery are wrong.
2) A system of taxation does not involve anyone claiming that they own another person or group, but slavery does.
So, institutions that are based upon fundamentally different claims cannot be the same institution.
D) 1) Slavery is wrong.
2) Taxation is not wrong.
So, taxation is not the same thing as slavery.

Question 9

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: Women aren't oppressed in America today, since men are subject to serious burdens that are often more significant than those women face: for instance, many more men are in prison, are killed by street or combat violence, and are hurt or killed doing dangerous jobs.

A) 1) Men today are subject to serious burdens that are often more significant than those women face.
2) Women in America today could count as an oppressed group only if they were subject to the most significant social burdens
So, women are not oppressed.
B) 1) Many more men than women are in prison, killed by street or combat violence, and hurt or killed doing dangerous jobs.
So, women are not oppressed.
C) 1) Men today are subject to serious burdens that are often more significant than those women face.
So, women are not oppressed.
D) 1) Women aren't oppressed in America today.
2) Many more men than women are in prison, killed by street or combat violence, and hurt or killed doing dangerous jobs.
So, men are oppressed

Question 10

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: You should always eat locally-grown food, because eating locally-grown food uses resources in a less environmentally damaging way than imported food.

A) 1) Eating locally grown food uses resources in a less environmentally damaging way than imported food.
2) Sometimes it's better to use resources in a less environmentally damaging way. So, you should always eat locally-grown food.
B) 1) Eating locally-grown food always uses resources in a less environmentally damaging way than imported food.
2) You should use resources in the least environmentally damaging way. So, you should always eat locally grown food.
C) 1) You should always eat locally-grown food.
2) Eating locally grown food uses resources in a less environmentally damaging way than imported food.
So, you should never eat imported food.
D) 1) Eating locally-grown food always uses resources in a less environmentally damaging way than imported food.
So, you should always eat locally grown food.

Question 11

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: All actors are self-involved narcissists. Will Ferrell is an actor. Need I say more?

A) 1) All actors are self-involved narcissists.
2) Will Ferrell is an actor.
So, we need not say anything more about Will Ferrell.
B) 1) All actors are self-involved narcissists
2) Will Ferrell is a self-involved narcissist. So, Will Ferrell is an actor.
C) 1) All actors are self-involved narcissists.
2) Will Ferrell is an actor.
So, Will Ferrell is a self-involved narcissist.
D) 1) Will Ferrell is a self-involved narcissist
2) Will Ferrell is an actor.
So, Will Ferrell is a self-involved narcissist.

Question 12

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: Creatures with central nervous systems are sentient, and therefore dogs are sentient.

A) 1) Creatures with central nervous systems are sentient. So, dogs are sentient.
B) 1) Creatures with central nervous systems are sentient.
2) Dogs have central nervous systems.
So, dogs are sentient.
C) 1) Creatures with central nervous systems are sentient.
2) Dogs don't have a central nervous system. So, dogs are sentient.
D) 1) Creatures with central nervous systems are sentient.
2) Dogs are sentient.
So, dogs have central nervous systems.

Question 13

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: God has commanded us not to steal, and therefore stealing is morally wrong.

A) 1) God has commanded us not to steal.
2) If God commands us not to do something, then doing it is morally wrong. So, stealing is morally wrong.
B) 1) God has commanded us not to steal. So, stealing is morally wrong.
C) 1) God is all-powerful and our creator.
2) God has commanded us not to steal. So, stealing is morally wrong.
D) 1) Stealing is morally wrong.
2) We should do what God commands.
So, we shouldn't steal.

Question 14

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: There are objective moral values only if God exists. Therefore, God exists.

A) 1) God exists.
2) There are objective moral values.
So, there are objective moral values only if God exists.
B) 1) There are objective moral values only if God exists.
2) God exists.
So, there are objective moral values.
C) 1) There are objective moral values only if God exists.
2) There are not objective moral values. So, God exists.
D) 1) There are objective moral values only if God exists.
2) There are objective moral values. So, God exists.

Question 15

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: God's commanding something is not what makes it right or wrong. If it were, then it would be right to torture a baby for fun if God had commanded us to do that.

A) 1) If God's commanding something was what makes things right or wrong, then it would be right to torture a baby for fun if God had commanded us to do that.
2) It would not be right to torture a baby for fun if God had commanded us to do that.
So, God's commanding something is not what makes it right or wrong.
B) 1) God commanded us to torture babies for fun.
2) If God's commanding something is what makes it right or wrong, then it would be right to torture a baby for fun if God had commanded us to do that.
So, it's right to torture babies for fun.
C) 1) God's commanding something is not what makes it right or wrong.
2) Torturing babies for fun is wrong regardless of whether God commands it. So, God does not exist.
D) 1) God's commanding something is not what makes it right or wrong.
2) If it were, then it would be right to torture a baby for fun if God had commanded us to do that.
So, it's wrong to torture a baby for fun.

Question 16

The following passage contains an argument with an implicit premise and/or conclusion. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage:
People act like it's obvious that there are objective moral facts: that there are at least some things that are right or wrong independently of what anyone happens to think or feel about the matter.
Some simple reflection, however, shows this belief is false. If there's substantial disagreement about a topic even after it has been extensively discussed for millennia, then that's evidence that there are no objective facts about that topic. Given what we
Know about people's views of morality, it follows that there are no objective moral facts.

A) 1) Given what we know about people's views of morality, it follows that there are no objective moral facts.
2) If there's substantial disagreement about a topic even after it has been extensively discussed for millennia, then that's evidence that there are no objective facts about that topic.
So, there no objective moral facts.
B) 1) If there's substantial disagreement about a topic even after it has been discussed extensively for millennia, then that's evidence that there are no objective facts about that topic.
2) There is substantial disagreement about morality even after it has been discussed for millennia.
So, there are no objective moral facts.
C) 1) People act like it's obvious there are moral facts.
2) There are no objective moral facts.
So, if there's substantial disagreement about a topic even after it has been extensively discussed for millennia, then that's evidence that there are no objective facts about that topic.
D) 1) If there's substantial disagreement about a topic even after it has been discussed extensively for millennia, then that's evidence that there are no objective facts about that topic.
2) After extensive discussion for millennia, there is not substantial disagreement about morality.
So, there are no objective moral facts.

Question 17

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: The choices I make and the things I do might, some of the time, be noticed by the people who live around me right now. That gives some of those choices the illusory feel of meaningfulness. But with very few exceptions, the choices I make and the things I do right now will soon be forgotten by me and everyone else. This fact remains true whether I am kind or callous, generous or self-absorbed, hard-working or lazy. No matter what I do with my life, the choices I make, the things I do, it will all be quickly forgotten.
It is almost certainly true that in 100 years, I will be completely forgotten. And it is undoubtedly true that I will be completely forgotten in a million years. Why should I invest time and effort in choices and activities that will, ultimately, be completely forgotten?
To invest such time and effort would be absurd. To invest such time and effort would be to behave as if my life is meaningful when the perspective of a million years into the future reveals this inescapable conclusion: life is meaningless.

A) 1) The choices I make and the things I do might, some of the time, be noticed by the people who live around me right now.
2) No matter what I do with my life, the choices I make, the things I do will all be quickly forgotten.
So, my choices have only an illusory feel of meaningfulness.
B) 1) In order for life to have meaning, people in the future must remember us.
2) People in the future won't remember us. So, life does not have meaning.
C) 1) It is almost certainly true that in 100 years I will be completely forgotten.
2) Investing time and effort into my activities is absurd when they will be forgotten in 100 years.
So, life is meaningless.
D)
1) The choices I make and the things I do might some of the time be noticed by people who live around me right now.
2) But with very few exceptions, the choices I make and the things I do right now will soon be forgotten by me and everyone else.
So, life is meaningless.

Question 18

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: In the past, a common definition used to determine if someone was dead was this: a person is dead if, but only if, they were not respirating and their blood was not circulating. Call this the cardiopulmonary definition of death. It turns out that this definition of death is implausible. This becomes clear when we contemplate cases where a person's brain is irreversibly damaged so that it no longer functions at all. A patient in this condition could be put on an artificial respirator and thus would be respirating. The cardiopulmonary definition classifies a person whose brain is entirely non-functional as not dead. The cardiopulmonary definition is therefore implausible, since a person with no brain function clearly should be classified as dead.

A) 1) If a person's brain is irreversibly damaged so that it no longer functions at all, that person is not dead.
2) The cardiopulmonary definition of death implies that a person is dead if their brain has lost all function.
So, the cardiopulmonary definition of death is implausible.
B) 1) According to the cardiopulmonary definition of death, a person is dead if, but only if, they are not respirating and their blood is not circulating.
2) The cardiopulmonary definition of death is implausible.
So, a person whose brain is entirely non-functional is dead even if they're respirating.
C)
1) If the cardiopulmonary definition of death is true, then a person with irreversible loss of all brain function is not dead if they're breathing on an artificial respirator.
2) But a person with irreversible loss of all brain function is dead even if they're breathing on an artificial respirator.
So, the cardiopulmonary definition of death is not true.
D) 1) A person is dead if, but only if, they are not respirating and their blood is not circulating.
2) A person whose brain has irreversibly lost all function but is on an artificial respirator is respirating.
So, a person whose brain has irreversibly lost all function but is on an artificial respirator is not dead.

Question 19

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Identify the best standard-form representation of the argument.
The passage: Without God life [would have no] purpose. For man and the universe would then be simple accidents of chance, thrust into existence for no reason. Without God the universe is the result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exists. As for man, he is a freak of nature-a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. Man is just a lump of slime that evolved rationality. As one philosopher has put it: "Human life is mounted upon a subhuman pedestal and must shift for itself alone in the heart of a silent and mindless universe.''
What is true of the universe and of the human race is also true of us as individuals. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life.
(Quoted from William Lane Craig, "The Absurdity of Life without God." Available online: "http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god" http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god)

A) 1) Without God life would have no purpose.
So, Man is just a lump of slime that evolved rationality.
B) 1) Things that exist as a result of random chance do not have a purpose.
2) If God does not exist, then humans exist as a result of random chance. So, if God does not exist, humans do not have a purpose.
C) 1) God does not exist.
2) Without God life would have no purpose. So, life has no purpose.
D) 1) Without God the universe is the result of a cosmic accident and man is a freak of nature.
2) If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life.
So, without God life would have no purpose.

Question 20

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Represent the argument in standard form.
The passage: There is no afterlife. To see why, consider the following: if the soul does not consist of something physical, then it cannot interact with the body. But, the soul does interact with the body. And, if the soul consists of something physical, then it decays with the body after death. Furthermore, if the soul decays with the body after death, then there is no afterlife.

Question 21

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Represent the argument in standard form.
The passage: When we think about living things in general (from microbes and plants to humans and other animals), we can see that an organism is alive if, and only if, it is
functioning as an integrated whole. Certain parts of an organism can stop working and it will still count as alive because it is still a distinct individual that maintains its own structure and functioning: a plant can still be alive even if one of its leaves dies, and a person can still be alive even if they have poor liver function. Furthermore, because a human organism functions as an integrated whole if, but only if, its brain has not entirely and irreversibly ceased to function, we can conclude that a human is dead if, and only if, their entire brain has irreversibly ceased to function.

Question 22

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Represent the argument in standard form.
The passage: … God, if we are to believe an orthodox story, has prescribed eternal torment [in Hell] as a punishment for insubordination…. The orthodox story is explicit about the temporal scale of the punishment: it is to go on forever. Many of those who tell the orthodox story are also concerned to emphasize the quality of the punishment. The agonies to be endured by the damned intensify, in unimaginable ways, the sufferings we undergo in our earthly lives. … Although those who elaborate the orthodox account are sometimes concerned with the fit between crime and punishment, there is no possibility of a genuine balance. For the punishment of the damned is infinitely disproportionate to their crimes. [Therefore, God could never be justified in condemning anyone to Hell.]
(Quoted from Quoted from David Lewis (2007), "Divine Evil," in Philosophers Without Gods, ed. Louise Antony (Oxford University Press), p. 232.)

Question 23

The following passage contains an argument that is somewhat complex, either because it makes complicated claims or contains a lot of supplementary information. Represent the argument in standard form.
The passage:
According to the Medical Model of disability, a disability is an impairment that inherently causes a person to face significant personal and social limitations. The Medical Model doesn't imply that disabled people matter less or that people with
disabilities don't have lives worth living. The Medical Model does, however, imply that their disabilities make their lives worse, no matter where they live. For example, the Medical Model says that, regardless of the society in which they live, a deaf person's hearing impairment causes communication challenges, which in turn cause significant personal and social limitations.
A thought experiment can show that the Medical Model doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Suppose you wake up one morning having been magically transported to another planet, where there are humans who have evolved the ability to communicate telepathically. You lack this ability. Relative to them, you are telepathically impaired. But, is your lack of telepathy a disability?
Will your lack of telepathy cause you to face significant limitations?
Importantly, this depends on the details of the society you find yourself in. If much of their business, communication, and entertainment relies on their ability to communicate telepathically, then lacking this ability would make you worse off. And, if they stigmatize people who don't have telepathy-if they treat you with pity or scorn- then you would be worse off. In these kinds of conditions, a lack of telepathy is disabling. But, suppose this mostly telepathic society was set up to accommodate those who lack telepathy. Suppose that everyone is able and willing to use verbal communication instead of telepathy so no one is excluded from social interaction.
Suppose that a lack of telepathy is valued as a form of diversity, and is thus not stigmatized. In that society, you wouldn't be disabled by lacking telepathy, even if it was an ability others tended to have.
The point of this hypothetical example is that social arrangements play a key role in determining whether or not this impairment makes you worse off. The same point can be made about real-world impairments. Just as with telepathic impairment, the effects of hearing impairment, vision impairment, mobility impairment, and so on all depend on social arrangements. If deafness, for example, were accommodated and not stigmatized, then the social limitations most deaf people currently face would be eliminated. This shows the Medical Model is implausible because it totally ignores society's role in turning an impairment into a disability.
(Adapted from arguments by William Vicars ( "http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/disability-deafness.htm" http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/disability-deafness.htm) and Amundson, R., 1992, "Disability, Handicap, and the Environment," Journal of Social Philosophy, 23(1): 105-19.)