We know from the 1st paragraph that Rawls is not a fan of utilitarianism. A is pretty much the opposite of utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number of people is not always the case, there are situations when one person's preferences should be prioritized over the majority's preferences. That's the opposite of utilitarianism.

The passage says that Rawls is reacting against utilitarianism. The tone ("complains") to describes Rawls opinion as well as the author's ("incredibly" "odd consequences"...) suggest the disapproval of utilitarianism of both Rawls and the author.

Did people find other areas of the passage that support A? Does the thought experiment and the last sentence of the passage support anti-utilitarianism?

@BenjiLuscko Or is the gap in the argument the assumption that the mixing is necessary for the CO2 to be released? So the Co2 will only be released once the cold and warm water has mixed

Oceanographer: To reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere you should pump CO2 deep into the ocean.

Person: Alrighty, why should I?

Oc: Thanks for asking. I'll tell you why. If you pump CO2 deep into the ocean, it will be trapped there for centuries.

Pe: Ok, thanks. How do you know this?

Oc: Because the cool dense water that lies in the deep parts of the ocean, which you'll be pumping this CO2 into, takes centuries to mix with the warmer water near the surface.

Pe: Ok, but what does the mixing of warm and cold water have to do with reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? How do I know that this dissolved CO2 in the cold water won't make it's way into the atmosphere for centuries?

Oc: Oh good question. I forgot to mention that the CO2 that's dissolved into the cool deep water won't escape much sooner than the cool deep water mixes with the warm water. Therefore it will be trapped there for centuries.

Please critique or add to this. I am just posting this as a way to work through the argument.

I see the gap in the argument involves the point about mixing of cold and warm water. The stimulus does not make clear why the fact that it takes centuries for cold and warm water to mix is relevant to reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But C bridges that gap to say that the CO2 in the deep water will indeed be trapped for centuries because it will not be released a long time before the cold and warm waters mix, which takes centuries.

If E said: the novel Safekeeping, published by peninsula press, will probably earn a profit for its publisher since almost every profitable novel was published by Peninsula over the last ten years.

Then Would this be a parallel flaw to the stimulus?

Not a very important question but just trying to understand the flaw as best I can

@TG55 I was also wondering the same thing. I understand it’s not parallel to the argument in the stimulus, but I would like to know if E is a valid argument or not?

is the argument about Jackson taking the advice a valid argument? I know it's not parallel to the Peter brushing teeth argument, but I'm wondering if it's valid at all, say IF we assume deep contentment and happiness are the same thing.

If deep contentmnet = happiness, It sounds like the necessary condition of "succeeding in happiness" was met. But that couldn't lead us to the conclusion that Jackson took the advice right? Since only the necessary condition was met

Tiger argument….

Many coffee tables are rectangles, but The coffee table in my top floor penthouse is an oval. Therefore, not every coffee table is rectangular.

Disney argument…

I only buy Prada or Burberry sunglasses. The sunglasses I bought today are not Prada. Therefore, the sunglasses I bought today are Burberry.

Cat argument….

In the past, my waffle maker has broken and caused a significant amount of smoke to be emitted in the air, causing the smoke alarm to go off in my penthouse. My best friend Julian is a waffle connoisseur. He makes waffles every single day. He has never gone a single day without eating a waffle. He likes his waffles to be crispy. While penthouse sitting at my penthouse, he texted me to say the smoke alarm is going off. Therefore, Julian broke the waffle machine again and caused the smoke alarm to go off.