Comments

• 1 Like

  Pride Only Hurts Alum Member

  July 2019 2186 karma

  Sure I’ll give it a shot.
  The conclusion is that when a business performs a notably ethical action, the news should publicize it to help them patronize the business. The support offered is that media should help businesses that meet “high ethical standards”. Ask yourself, where is the potential hole in this argument. For me, the first thing that stands out is use of similar but clearly different terms. “Meeting high ethical standard” and “notably ethical action”. AC B says that meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of “refraining from unethical behavior” which is not the same as a “single notably ethical action.”
• chadwickang Alum Member

  July 2019 29 karma

  @"Pride Only Hurts" said:
  Sure I’ll give it a shot.
  The conclusion is that when a business performs a notably ethical action, the news should publicize it to help them patronize the business. The support offered is that media should help businesses that meet “high ethical standards”. Ask yourself, where is the potential hole in this argument. For me, the first thing that stands out is use of similar but clearly different terms. “Meeting high ethical standard” and “notably ethical action”. AC B says that meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of “refraining from unethical behavior” which is not the same as a “single notably ethical action.”

  I think I was trying too hard to look at this from a formal-logical perspective. So if I understand this correctly, because meeting high ethical standards is mostly refraining from unethical behavior, does it mean that the news media wouldn't really be able to motivate people enough to patronize that business, because it's most likely not going to be a "notably ethical action"?
• 1 Like

  Pride Only Hurts Alum Member

  July 2019 2186 karma

  @chadwickang said:

  @"Pride Only Hurts" said:
  Sure I’ll give it a shot.
  The conclusion is that when a business performs a notably ethical action, the news should publicize it to help them patronize the business. The support offered is that media should help businesses that meet “high ethical standards”. Ask yourself, where is the potential hole in this argument. For me, the first thing that stands out is use of similar but clearly different terms. “Meeting high ethical standard” and “notably ethical action”. AC B says that meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of “refraining from unethical behavior” which is not the same as a “single notably ethical action.”

  I think I was trying too hard to look at this from a formal-logical perspective. So if I understand this correctly, because meeting high ethical standards is mostly refraining from unethical behavior, does it mean that the news media wouldn't really be able to motivate people enough to patronize that business, because it's most likely not going to be a "notably ethical action"?

  No not quite. I think it's ok to look at this from with formal logic (I just tend to do it better the other way).

  Here's what we're given. Sorry if the wording is off, I don't have the question in front of me.

  "if company meets high ethical standard THEN media should support"
  (If A then

  The argument says, "Company performed notably ethical action." Therefore "media should support."

  We're asked to weaken. So we must attack the support. Answer choice B does this because it tells us simply performing a notable ethical action does not qualify as "meeting high ethical standards." since it's not the same thing, we can't say it's sufficient to require media to support them.

  It might help to think of how you might strengthen this argument. If the answer choice said "the best way to meet high ethical standards is through a notably ethical action" then it would provide support for the conclusion.
• chadwickang Alum Member

  July 2019 29 karma

  Ohhhh

  That makes so much more sense!! Thank you so much!
• changejudge Member

  July 2019 72 karma

  I also got the question wrong originally. The way I've explained answer B to myself is that if "meeting H.E.S. is primarily a matter of refraining" then that's not necessarily the same as "performing a notably ethical action." Maybe the business performed one notably ethical action, but it's been doing several other unethical actions (not refraining) thus failing HES and not deserving media coverage.

  This Q was definitely tricky, however. The correct AC uses weak wording by saying that meeting HES is "primarily" a matter of refraining.