Free will skeptics argue that if all events—including brain states—are caused by prior events according to natural laws, then our choices are determined and we aren't truly free. Defenders respond that free will doesn't require exemption from causality; it requires acting on one's own reasons rather than external compulsion. The drunk driver chose freely (even if caused), while someone held at gunpoint did not. Skeptics counter that this 'compatibilist' position merely redefines freedom.
The passage suggests that
everyone agrees that free will and determinism are compatible
the drunk driver's action was caused by external compulsion
natural laws have no influence on brain states
philosophical disputes may turn on how key terms are defined
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. The debate centers on what 'free will' means.
- Context clues: Skeptics define freedom as escape from causation; compatibilists as acting on one's reasons.
- Meaning: Different definitions of 'freedom' drive the disagreement.
- Verify: Calling compatibilism a "redefinition" shows the dispute is definitional.
💡 Strategy: When parties disagree on whether X applies, and they use different definitions, infer definitional dispute.
Choice A is incorrect because skeptics call compatibilism "merely redefining"—disagreement continues. Choice B is incorrect because the driver "chose freely" unlike the gunpoint victim. Choice C is incorrect because the skeptic position assumes brain states are caused by natural laws.