Self-study
Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience store a 10-dollar bill to pay for my purchase, and he mistakenly gave me change for a 20-dollar bill. █ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ █████ █ ███ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ███
██████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██████ █ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ █ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Marie says a cashier mistakenly gave her change for a 20-dollar bill when she only paid with a 10-dollar bill. She claims that, since she did not use deception, threats, or violence to get the extra money, it is morally legitimate for her to keep the difference.
Julia rejects this conclusion, and provides an analogy: if Marie mistakenly gave her own coat to Julia, Julia would not be entitled to keep it even though she had not used deception, threats, or force to get it.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Julia counters Marie's position. She does this by appealing to an analogous situation where she draws a different conclusion from Marie's.
4.
Julia's response functions in which ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████
a
It strongly questions ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████████
Julia never grants that the principle behind Marie's actions is correct, even if Marie might not have applied it correctly in this case. In fact, Julia's reliance on an argument by analogy, where all the specific details of the case are changed, shows that her disagreement is with the principle behind Marie's actions, not just with Marie's application of that principle to a specific case.
b
It offers an ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████████
Julia does not offer additional support for Marie’s conclusion. In fact, she explicitly rejects Marie’s conclusion as nonsense.
c
It challenges Marie's ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████████
This is correct. Julia appeals to a relevantly analogous situation — her analogy of Marie handing Julia the wrong coat — and reaches a conclusion opposite to Marie’s conclusion: she is not entitled to keep what was given to her unintentionally, even if she obtained it without deception, threats, or force.
d
It uses Marie's █████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████
Julia does not discuss any problems she is facing herself, and certainly doesn't use Marie's criterion to solve any such problems. She strongly disagrees with Marie's criterion.
e
It proposes a █████████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ █████ ████████
Julia does not propose any new principles. She only addresses the principle Marie proposes, and explicitly rejects it. And since Julia calls "nonsense" Marie's claim that it was "not morally wrong" of her to keep the extra change, it seems that Julia, far from reserving judgment on Marie's actions, does think it was morally wrong for Marie to act as she did.