Passage Summary: The author argues against Tolstoy's idea that knowledge of the past erases free will. The author points out that we need that very knowledge to judge people, and since we do judge people, Tolstoy must be wrong.

Conclusion: We should dismiss Tolstoy's claim that knowing the history of an action means we can no longer view that action as being done freely.

Reasoning: We are only justified in praising or blaming someone if we know a lot about the events leading to their action, and we are indeed sometimes justified in such praise or blame.

Analysis: To bridge the gap in this 'Sufficient Assumption' question, we need to connect 'justified praise/blame' to 'free will.' The author establishes that we sometimes have the knowledge required for justified praise or blame. To prove Tolstoy is wrong—that is, to prove that having this knowledge does *not* mean the action wasn't free—we need an assumption that says if we are justified in praising or blaming someone, the action must have been performed freely. Look for an answer that makes 'free will' a requirement for the 'justified praise' the author already accepts as a reality.