Is Survival Selfish? Analyze the Text

Wallace writes that "the number one determining factor for survival is simply whether people hold it together in a crisis or fall apart" (lines 40 - 42). Is this an example of a claim, a reason, or evidence? Explain.

Lines 40 - 42 are an example of reason. Those lines are an example of reason because they describe something that bleeds into someone's survival from a logical perspective. Wallace goes into deeper detail on this issue later in her argument, talking about a woman who assessed her situation, held her own, and made it out alive, not caring about anyone else (Lines 44 - 51).

Reread lines 86 - 91. As evidence for Wallace's claim, is this paragraph valid and relevant? Explain.

This paragraph is relevant. In this paragraph it is said that people who do think of others over themselves ran to help people on instinct, and that their actions were just a matter of what was most important to them in that moment. Wallace points out that survival is a tricky subject. One day we will be running towards danger, and another day we will be running from it.

Lane Wallace begins her argument with a series of questions to get her readers thinking about what is selfish and what is heroic. In your own words, state the claim that she expresses in lines 18 - 21. Take into account the information she presents in the rest of her argument, including her conclusions at the end.

The claim Wallace expresses is that the subject of survival is a difficult and confusing topic, with multiple viewpoints to consider. Wallace tells us through this her argument that, "Self-preservation is supposedly an instinct," that everyone, no matter who they are, always thinks of saving themselves first, regardless of any other information, so who are we to judge them? Yes, thinking of someone else before thinking of you is the good samaritan thing to do, but when someone is in a situation like the Titanic, their first instinct is to save themselves and make sure they are okay. Nothing else.

In lines 24 - 37 what evidence does Wallace offer to support her idea that people are not always focused on "whatever [is] necessary to survive" in a crisis? Is the evidence relevant and sufficient? Explain.

The evidence the Wallace decides to use is an anecdote about when she went for a drink with her friend in Grand Central Station and an explosion occurred. Wallace says that different people had multiple different reactions: "...push our way through a crowd of people who were staring, transfixed, at the column of smoke rising from the front of the station. Some people were crying... screaming... on their cell phones... not doing the one thing that would increase everyone's chances of survival... moving away from the area." (Lines 30 - 37) Wallace's evidence is relevant and sufficient because it represents a crisis in the most accurate way possible, but it strays away from her claim drastically. These people were not looking out for themselves, but they were in shock of what had just occurred right before their eyes and were freaking out.

In lines 44 - 60, Wallace notes that survivors often suffer from feelings of guilt. Does she think these feelings are justified? Does she support her reasoning with relevant and sufficient evidence? Explain your response.

Wallace does not think that feelings of guilt are justifiable. She thinks this because in her mind, and many others, self-preservation is key. She would rather live to see another day only looking out for her wellbeing, than die with hundreds of others who were too stunned to do anything about their predicament. Wallace supports this in lines 44 - 51, about a woman in a plane crash: "I remember reading the account of one woman who was in an airliner that crashed on landing. People were frozen or screaming, but nobody was moving toward the emergency exits, even as smoke began to fill the cabin. After realizing that the people around her were too paralyzed to react, she took direct action, crawling over several rows of people to get to the exit. She got out of the plane and survived."

In the final paragraph, Wallace writes that there is "a fine line between smart and selfish," and that "sometimes there's no line at all." What does she mean by this, and how does her conclusion restate her claim?

Wallace is indicating that some people actually think on what they would do in a survival situation and others just run straight away, only looking out for themselves. When Wallace says "sometimes there is no line at all", she is indicating that sometimes survival is really all about someone's nature and instincts. This ties back into her claim, subject of survival is a difficult and confusing topic, with multiple viewpoints to consider, because reactions to a survival situation are all different. They really depend on the person. Not all people will stay behind and help, and not all people will only look out for themselves. Just like life, there is a different and interesting experience for each and every person.