Self-study
Walter: Conclusion For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an injustice perpetrated against one of society’s disadvantaged is not just morally wrong but also shortsighted: Support a system that inflicts an injustice on a disadvantaged person today can equally well inflict that same injustice on a well-to-do person tomorrow.
████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████
Walter's Argument
Walter says tolerating injustice against the disadvantaged is (1) morally wrong and (2) shortsighted. The shortsightedness piece has a specific support: a system that inflicts injustice on a disadvantaged person today can later inflict the same injustice on a wealthy person. So self-interest is supposed to line up with morality. The wealthy should oppose these injustices because they could be next.
Larissa's Response
Larissa accepts that allowing these injustices to persist is bad policy. That matches the "shortsighted" half of Walter's conclusion. What she rejects is the reasoning Walter uses to get there. She says the wealthy and well-educated can protect themselves from injustices that hit the less well-off, so Walter's equal-risk story doesn't hold up.
Then she swaps in her own reason: tolerating these injustices is bad policy because it fuels social unrest.
4.
Larissa responds to Walter by █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
giving reason to █████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
Larissa doesn't doubt Walter's conclusion. She agrees that allowing these injustices to persist is bad policy. The thing she challenges is his reasoning, specifically the claim that the wealthy face equal risk. (A) would describe someone attacking the conclusion itself, which Larissa never does.
b
drawing implausible consequences ████ ██████████ ███████████
Larissa doesn't draw consequences from Walter's assumptions. She directly disputes one of his claims (that the wealthy face the same risk) and then offers her own independent argument. There's no "if Walter is right, then this absurd thing follows" move here.
c
questioning Walter’s authority ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████
Authority never comes up. Larissa engages with the substance of Walter's argument, not his standing or qualifications to make it. (C) describes an ad-hominem-style response that isn't in the dialogue.
d
providing an alternative ██████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
Larissa accepts Walter's conclusion that allowing these injustices to persist is bad policy, then replaces his reason (equal risk) with a different one (social unrest). That's exactly "providing an alternative reason for accepting the truth of Walter's conclusion."
This accurately describes Larissa's response. Consider her phrasing phrasing: "Allowing such injustices to persist is bad policy not because it places everyone at equal risk of injustice but because it is a potent source of social unrest." In other words, "not Walter's reason, but my reason."
e
charging Walter with ████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████████
Larissa isn't accusing Walter of stopping short. "Stopping short of the full implications" would mean Walter's argument is right as far as it goes but doesn't go far enough. Larissa's response is different: she says Walter's reasoning is wrong, not incomplete. The wealthy aren't actually at equal risk, so his support for the conclusion fails. She then supplies a different support, not an extension of his.