Self-study
Support If violations of any of a society's explicit rules routinely go unpunished, then that society's people will be left without moral guidance. ███████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ █████ █ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a society should never allow any of its explicit rules to be broken without punishment. This is based on the fact that if violation of a society’s explicit rules ROUTINELY go unpunished, the people in society will be left without moral guidance, which ultimately leads chaos.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that allowing rules to SOMETIMES go unpunished doesn’t necessarily have the negative effects of allowing rules to ROUTINELY go unpunished. Routine non-punishments means regularly letting violations go unpunished. Chaos results if that happens. But chaos might not result if you just left a few violations go unpunished, without letting the nonpunishment become routine.
22.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes for granted ████ █ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ████████
The author never assumes that avoiding routine nonpunishment is sufficient to avoid chaos completely. There might be other causes that lead to chaos; the author’s simply recommending that we should avoid one thing that we know causes chaos.
b
fails to consider ████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████
The purpose of the explicit rules is irrelevant, because the argument is based on the impact of routinely letting violations go unpunished. The purpose of the rules has no relationship to the fact that routine nonpunishment leads to chaos.
c
infers, from the █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████
The argument does not use a premise about some particular rules to reach a conclusion about any rules. Both the premise and conclusion are about any explicit rules.
d
confuses the routine █████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████
The premise concerns the effects of routine nonpunishment. But the author interprets this as a statement about the effects of sometimes not punishing. This is why the author believes society should not even allow a single instance of nonpunishment.
e
takes for granted ████ ███ ██ █ █████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ████ ██████
The argument is based on the fact the routine nonpunishment of any explicit rule leads to chaos. But the author is open to the idea that murder might be more serious than theft. What matters is that routine nonpunishment of either leads to chaos.