Principle Questions / Patterns

fmihalic2

Hey all,

I've noticed that every now and then I will see an argument that doesn't seem to have any glaring flaws, if any at all. Sure enough, it's a principle question in the range of 17-23...so I know I better be hyper-alert because this is going to be tricky. I proceed to read through the answer choices and immediately throw away 2 of them because they are completely irrelevant. Now, to the nitty gritty :

Example: "...therefore, that ought not be done for it is both immoral and would cause more harm than good."

The correct answer would be something like "Anything that goes against common moral belief and does not help society but instead damages society ought not be done." Obviously, this happens to be an assumption as well.

BUT, among the answer choices one will find something along the lines of "anything immoral ought not be done" and "Actions that cause more harm than good are immoral." Both are attractive for their own reasons since the first seems to be reasonably supported by the conclusion, but not SO much as the conclusion mentions two criteria and the second combines the two elements of the conclusion but in reality is not supported by the conclusion.

All of this said, I think that I've identified a pattern here with principle questions and I'm looking for some validation. When answering a principle question, one must look for (and find) and exact match to the information discussed in the stimulus. There will be answer choices that maybe fall "inside the realm" of the stimulus but they are not an exact match that would validate the conclusion.

Thanks in advance!

TheMikey

I agree with you that there is a pattern to principle questions, but when you shouldn't be looking for a flaw when you do principle questions. ignore any flaw that may be in a principle question and just focus on distinguishing the principle itself. then you just kinda match the principle in the stimulus up with an AC. but yes, the principle has to match very well between the stimulus and ACs.

I know 7sage splits the 2 kinds of principle questions up into PSA and principle. myself though, I just think of one as applying a principle from the stim to the AC, or figuring out the principle in the stimulus and choosing it in the AC. so basically just applying it vs finding it.

fmihalic2

Ah, I don't know about your personal style but I always read the stimulus before reading the question stem so I don't know exactly what I'm going to have to do with the information in the stimulus while reading it. Typically you can tell though. Flaw questions are usually have arguments so untenable that you see them coming by the second sentence.

I have heard of people reading the question stem before the stimulus but that didn't work for me. I found myself so concentrated on what I would have to do with the information that I would miss important elements.

TheMikey

@fmihalic2 said:
Ah, I don't know about your personal style but I always read the stimulus before reading the question stem so I don't know exactly what I'm going to have to do with the information in the stimulus while reading it. Typically you can tell though. Flaw questions are usually have arguments so untenable that you see them coming by the second sentence.

I have heard of people reading the question stem before the stimulus but that didn't work for me. I found myself so concentrated on what I would have to do with the information that I would miss important elements.

ahh, I see. yeah, I read the Q stem before the stimulus.