Julia: Nonsense. If you mistakenly hand me your coat, thinking it is my coat, then even though I did not get the coat by means of any deception, threats, or violence against you, I am not morally entitled to keep it for myself.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Julia concludes Marie’s claim that it is not morally wrong to keep an extra 10 dollars is nonsense. To support her claim, Julia similarly argues that she would not be morally entitled to keep Marie’s coat for herself if Marie were to mistakenly hand the coat to her.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Julia counters the position held by Marie. She does this by presenting an analogous argument with a conclusion opposite to the conclusion drawn by Marie.
A
It strongly questions the application of Marie’s principle to the case that Marie described, while accepting that principle.
Julia does not accept the principle Marie describes. In fact, Julia explicitly rejects this principle by concluding she would not be morally entitled to keep Marie’s coat.
B
It offers an additional reason to accept Marie’s conclusion.
Julia does not accept Marie’s conclusion. In fact, she explicitly rejects Marie’s conclusion as nonsense.
C
It challenges Marie’s conclusion by claiming that the proper conclusion to draw in a relevantly similar situation would be the opposite of Marie’s.
The relevantly similar situation is Julia’s analogy of keeping Marie’s coat. In this analogy, Julia reaches a conclusion opposite of Marie’s conclusion.
D
It uses Marie’s criterion as a means of solving a moral problem Julia herself faces.
Julia does not present a problem she currently faces. We cannot assume her analogy of keeping Marie’s coat is an actual moral problem she currently faces.
E
It proposes a radically different principle by which Marie’s action might be judged, but reserves judgment as to whether Marie acted rightly.
Julia does not propose her own principle. She only addresses the principle Marie proposes and explicitly rejects it. We cannot assume that just because Julia rejects a principle, she is proposing her own.
Summary
Poor writers often express boring ideas with fancy syntax and difficult vocabulary. Inattentive readers may be impressed, but they also may misunderstand the writing. Alert readers will easily see through the pretentiousness.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Thus, a good principle for writers is: a writer’s style should match the complexity of the ideas expressed.
A
the simpler the style, the better the writing
This answer is unsupported. The author criticizes poor writing as using complex style to express mundane ideas. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there are not more complex ideas that necessitate a more complex style of writing.
B
inattentive readers are not worth writing for
This answer is unsupported. Nothing from the stimulus tells us which audiences are worth writing for.
C
only the most talented writers can successfully adopt a complex style
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not address talented writers or what they can achieve. The stimulus only addresses poor writing.
D
a writing style should not be more complex than the ideas expressed
This answer is strongly supported. The author criticizes poor writing as using complex style to express mundane ideas. Therefore, the author believes that the style of writing should correlate with the complexity of ideas being expressed.
E
alert readers are the only readers who are sensitive to writing style
This answer is unsupported. To say that alert readers are the “only” ones sensitive to style is too strong. We know that they are at least one group sensitive to style, but we cannot say they are the only ones.
Summarize Argument
Justice Upton says that judges should have the skills to determine if an administrative decision by a government minister is reasonable. Upton defends this using conditional logic and eliminating options. He tells us that either 1) something is wrong with the legal system, or 2) judges should be able to evaluate reasonableness. He eliminates the first option by saying there is little reason to believe there is something wrong with the legal system. This leaves us with the conclusion: judges should be able to answer the question of whether or not a decision is reasonable.
Identify Conclusion
Upton concludes that judges should be able to make judgements about administrative decisions: “Whether some administrative decision by a government minister is reasonable ‘is a question that judges, by their training and experience, should be well-equipped to answer.’”
A
There is nothing much wrong with the legal system.
This claim eliminates one of the two options that Justice Upton provides. By eliminating the claim that there is something wrong with the legal system, we are left with the other option, which is the main conclusion.
B
Judges should be given a greater part in administrative decision making.
This statement is not supported by the argument. The argument only says that judges should be able to determine if decisions are reasonable; it does not provide input on if the power of judges should expand.
C
Judges are qualified to decide upon the reasonableness of a government minister’s administrative decision.
This is the main conclusion. By eliminating the option that there is something badly wrong with the legal system, we are left with this claim. This is what Upton’s argument intends to defend.
D
If something were badly wrong with the legal system, judges would be ill-equipped to determine whether a government minister’s decisions are reasonable.
In using the “or” statement, the argument says:
/Something is badly wrong with the legal system→ Judges should be well equipped to determine whether a decision is reasonable
This answer is a false negation of that premise.
/Something is badly wrong with the legal system→ Judges should be well equipped to determine whether a decision is reasonable
This answer is a false negation of that premise.
E
If judges are well-equipped to determine whether an administrative decision is reasonable, there is not anything badly wrong with the legal system.
In using the “or” statement, the argument says:
/Judges should be well equipped to determine whether a decision is reasonable→ Something is badly wrong with the legal system
(Contrapositive of the translation used to explain D).
This answer is a false negation of that premise.
/Judges should be well equipped to determine whether a decision is reasonable→ Something is badly wrong with the legal system
(Contrapositive of the translation used to explain D).
This answer is a false negation of that premise.