PT76.S2.Q22 - a tax preparation company

Comments

• Rachel Yoon Member

  September 2016 173 karma

  Hello!
  
  I thought E was irrelevant with the argument since E was talking about clients behaviour and our argument was about whether the disclaimer offers legal protection for the company.
  
  In case of A,
  let's say for example, if there is a law saying that all tax preparation company should automatically add the disclaimer saying that the email should not be construed as advocating any violation, the company should add the disclaimer anyway for legal protection of other kind.
  
  However our argument is saying that if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection -> So the disclaimer serves no purpose. So A is supporting the argument by saying that if that is not the case, the company doesn't need legal protection.
  
  Even if company's clients knew how to illegally evade penalties and would try to do so, if company is out of that, it won't be their problem depending on the argument, I guess.
  
  
  
• Tina Cho Free Trial Member

  September 2016 442 karma

  Thanks
• stgl1230 Member

  September 2016 821 karma

  Lawgic helped me here.
  
  "The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company." D -> LP
  "But if the email elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection." L -> LP (or LP -> L)"
  Conclusion: "So the disclaimer serves no purpose." D -> P
  
  So if you look at (A), when translated to lawgic, it reads L -> P, which bridges the premises to the conclusion.
• Tina Cho Free Trial Member

  September 2016 442 karma

  Ahh,, I see! thanks!