Self-study
Suppose I have promised to keep a confidence and someone asks me a question that I cannot answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise. Obviously, I cannot both keep and break the same promise. Therefore, one cannot be obliged both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises.
12.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
a
It is claimed that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want. It is also claimed that we have the obligation to be civil to others. But civility requires that we not always say what we want. So, it cannot be true both that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want and that we have the duty to be civil.
The argument proceeds by giving an example in which one obligation (the right to say what you want) is in direct contradiction with another obligation (being civil to others). The argument then concludes that, in general, one cannot always fulfill both obligations.
b
Some politicians could attain popularity with voters only by making extravagant promises; this, however, would deceive the people. So, since the only way for some politicians to be popular is to deceive, and any politician needs to be popular, it follows that some politicians must deceive.
Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by providing an example of two things that are contradictory, but (B) operates by providing a necessary condition (making extravagant promises) for some politicians to attain popularity.
The stimulus concludes that two obligations cannot always coexist, while (B) concludes that some members of a group (politicians) must take a certain action (deceive).
c
If we put a lot of effort into making this report look good, the client might think we did so because we believed our proposal would not stand on its own merits. On the other hand, if we do not try to make the report look good, the client might think we are not serious about her business. So, whatever we do, we risk her criticism.
Mismatched premises. The stimulus operates by providing an example of two things that are contradictory, while (C) operates by introducing two opposite options (making the report look good or not doing so), then explaining that both options have the same necessary condition (risking criticism from the client).
d
If creditors have legitimate claims against a business and the business has the resources to pay those debts, then the business is obliged to pay them. Also, if a business has obligations to pay debts, then a court will force it to pay them. But the courts did not force this business to pay its debts, so either the creditors did not have legitimate claims or the business did not have sufficient resources.
Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) gives a conditional chain (legitimate claim AND resources to pay→ obliged to pay→ court will force), negates the necessary condition (/courts will force), then concludes that one of the sufficient conditions must have failed (either /legitimate claim or /resources to pay). This is different from the stimulus, which demonstrates that two things cannot coexist because they contradict each other.
e
If we extend our business hours, we will either have to hire new employees or have existing employees work overtime. But both new employees and additional overtime would dramatically increase our labor costs. We cannot afford to increase labor costs, so we will have to keep our business hours as they stand.
Mismatched premises. (E) gives a necessary condition (hiring new employees OR having existing employees work overtime) for an action (extending business hours). (E) then shows that the consequence of each option (increased labor costs) is not possible, so the original action (extending business hours) is not possible. This is different from the stimulus, which demonstrates that two things cannot coexist because they contradict each other.