Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Anna Wells argues for epistemic humility. "Recognition that we might be wrong should temper confidence," Wells writes. "Given past errors, current certainties may also prove mistaken."
Text 2: Philosopher Dr. Robert Chen examines humility's scope. "Universal epistemic humility is self-undermining," Chen observes. "If we should doubt everything, we should doubt that we should doubt everything. Some convictions must be exempt from doubt."
What logical concern does Chen raise about Wells's position?
That past errors never occurred
That universal doubt is paradoxically self-defeating
That confidence has no epistemic role
That humility is undesirable
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Chen argues universal doubt undermines itself—if all is doubtable, so is the principle of doubt. The position refutes itself if applied consistently.
- Evidence: Chen: doubting everything means "doubt that we should doubt."
- Reasoning: Self-application destroys the principle.
- Conclusion: Universal doubt is paradoxically self-undermining.
Choice A is incorrect because Chen doesn't dispute past errors. Choice C is incorrect because Chen argues some conviction needed. Choice D is incorrect because Chen only limits humility's scope.