Helen: Conclusion It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room the party was long over. ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████
In the stimulus, Helen discusses her brother Mark's excuse for missing their mother's birthday party. Helen makes three statements:
These types of statements come together to form a rule-application argument pattern. In this structure, the premises are the rule and the factual statement, and the conclusion is the value judgment. That's because by applying a general rule to a specific situation, the speaker is able to support a judgment about that situation based on the rule.
The justification Helen offers for ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████████████
ignores an important █████ ███████████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████
This could be a flaw if Mark had simply not told their mother that he forgot about her birthday. But Mark actively made up a falsehood as an excuse, so "lying is wrong" seems to pretty squarely apply. This distinction isn't relevant to the argument, so ignoring it isn't a flaw.
confuses having identified ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████
Helen's argument isn't about cause and effect. It's structured as the application of a principle to a particular situation; causation doesn't really come into play. At best, we could maybe say that Mark's lie caused a moral breach—but there's no confusion there.
judges behavior that ██ ███████ ██ ████████████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████
It seems reasonable that a moral standard that lying is wrong should only apply when someone can control what they're saying. But in this case, Mark's behavior was under his control: he chose to make up an excuse. So (C) isn't a flaw in Helen's justification.
relies on an ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████
Helen doesn't appeal to pity; if anything, she refuses to pity Mark, and mercilessly condemns his lie. Besides, if we accept both premises as true, Helen's conclusion does logically follow. That's why we're looking for a flaw in Helen's justification, not her overall argument structure.
attempts to justify █ ████████ █████ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████
Helen puts forward the principle that telling a falsehood is absolutely, always wrong. She uses this principle to justify a judgment that Mark was wrong to give a false excuse for missing their mother's birthday. But such an absolute principle is questionable by itself. In fact, saying it's wrong to tell an elaborate lie to one's mother just to avoid looking thoughtless is much easier to support.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.