Self-study
After several attempts to distract his young parrot from chewing on furniture, George reluctantly took an expert's advice and gently hit the parrot's beak whenever the bird started to chew furniture. ███ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ███
████ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ █ ████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ██████
Summary
George’s use of physical discipline on a pet was not justified, but Carla’s was.
In George’s case, it was not justified because the discipline did not prevent harm to the animal.
In Carla’s case, it was justified because the discipline prevented the animal from running into the street.
Missing Connection
The author makes two judgments, but doesn’t explicitly provide the same principle for doing so. What’s the common denominator? Harm to animals. George doesn’t prevent harm, so he isn’t justified; Carla does prevent a risk of harm (dog running into the street), so she is justified. The principle “if you are justified in disciplining an animal, you must be preventing harm to it” would guarantee the author’s conclusion in both cases. (Carla satisfies both conditions, George fails both conditions—i.e., he satisfies the contrapositive.)
12.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████████
a
When disciplining an ██████ ███████████ █ ███████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████
We don’t know if either George or Carla is an animal trainer, so this can’t be the right answer. Also, we don’t know how either person actually applied the discipline.
b
When training an ███████ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████
This applies to Carla: her discipline is justified, and it corrected behavior that could result in serious harm. The contrapositive (if not necessary to correct harmful behavior, not justified) applies to George. He didn’t correct a harmful behavior, so he wasn’t justified.
c
Using physical discipline ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███████
It’s not clear if this principle would apply to either case. George made several previous attempts to correct the parrot’s behavior; this may or may not cover “all alternative strategies.” We have no indication that Carla tried any alternative strategies first.
d
Physical discipline should ███ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ████████
This wouldn’t justify Carla’s actions, which the author wants to do. A puppy is an immature animal, and she did use physical discipline on it.
e
Physical discipline should ███ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████████ █████████
We don’t know if either Carla or George is an animal trainer. Also, the author wants to condemn George’s actions, but this would justify them.