Summary
Jack decided not to make his aunt’s will public. This decision was based on the following:
If the will was made public, his aunt’s money would go to someone who would squander the money, benefiting nobody.
If the will was not made public, the money would go to Jack’s mother, which would benefit her and others, and harm no one.
If the will was made public, his aunt’s money would go to someone who would squander the money, benefiting nobody.
If the will was not made public, the money would go to Jack’s mother, which would benefit her and others, and harm no one.
Missing Connection
We want to justify Jack’s decision not to make the will public. The premises concern the consequences of making the will public vs. not making the will public. We want to connect these consequences to what one should do in a way that proves not making the will public was the right course of action. For example:
When choosing between two options, choose one that benefits at least one person over one that doesn’t benefit anyone.
When choosing between two options, choose one that benefits at least one person over one that doesn’t benefit anyone.
A
Duties to family members take priority over duties to people who are not family members.
We don’t know whether Jack has a duty to allow his mother to get the money. In addition, Jack’s aunt is a family member. So potentially there might be a duty to follow the wishes of her will. (A) doesn’t prove that Jack’s decision was appropriate.
B
Violating a promise is impermissible whenever doing so would become known by others.
Jack violated the promise to his aunt. We want to establish that his decision was appropriate. But (B) tells me when violating a promise is impermissible. It doesn’t prove when violating a promise should be done.
C
One must choose an alternative that benefits some and harms no one over an alternative that harms some and benefits no one.
We don’t know whether the alternative of making the will public “harms some.” We know that it benefits no one, but we don’t know that it harms someone. So (C) doesn’t provide a principle that applies to Jack’s decision.
D
When faced with alternatives it is obligatory to choose whichever one will benefit the greatest number of people.
Making the will public benefited no one. But withholding the will from the public benefited at least Jack’s mother. So withholding the will from the public benefited the greatest number of people. According to (D), then, Jack was obligated to withhold the will from the public.
E
A promise becomes nonbinding when the person to whom the promise was made is no longer living.
(E) establishes that Jack was not bound by his promise to his aunt. But that doesn’t establish that Jack’s decision was appropriate. Just because he was morally allowed to go against his promise to his aunt does not imply that it was something he should have done.
Summary
Cheetahs live in African grasslands. Previous estimates of the size of the cheetah population must be in order to survive a natural disaster were too low. The current population of cheetahs barely meets the previous estimates. Currently, there is not enough African grassland to support a cheetah population larger than the current one.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Currently, the cheetah population will be unable to survive a natural disaster.
A
Previous estimates of the size of the existing wild cheetah population were inaccurate.
This answer is unsupported. It’s not that the estimate of the size of the cheetah population was inaccurate. Rather, it was the estimate of the population needed to survive a natural disaster that was inaccurate.
B
The cheetah’s natural habitat is decreasing in size at a faster rate than is the size of the wild cheetah population.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the cheetah’s natural habitat is decreasing in size. We only know that the current habitat is incapable of supporting a larger cheetah population than the current one.
C
The principal threat to the endangered wild cheetah population is neither pollution nor hunting, but a natural disaster.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the principle threat against the cheetah population is. We know that a natural disaster is a threat, but we don’t know if a natural disaster is the principle threat.
D
In the short term, the wild cheetah population will be incapable of surviving a natural disaster in the African grasslands.
This answer is strongly supported. If the current habitat cannot support a cheetah population larger than the current one, and the cheetah population is too low to survive a natural disaster, then the current cheetah population cannot survive a natural disaster.
E
In regions where land is suitable for cheetah habitation, more natural disasters are expected to occur during the next decade than occurred during the past decade.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus where natural disasters are expected to occur, if any disasters are expected to occur at all.