Self-study
Support Although withholding information from someone who would find that information painful is sometimes justified, there is no such justification if the person would benefit from having the information. ██████████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
Summary
Even if hearing it would be painful, one should not withhold information that would benefit someone else. Jason’s supervisor’s opinion of Jason’s work would improve if Jason knew his supervisor was displeased with his work. Therefore, Jane should tell Jason his supervisor is displeased.
Notable Assumptions
This argument moves from a general principle about telling others things that would benefit them to know to a specific example of such a case. However, it is unclear in the case that Jason would actually benefit in the way the original principle required. While his supervisor would be more pleased with his work, nothing in the argument specifically states that would benefit Jason. There is therefore a necessary assumption that the case would actually match the principle - that Jason would actually benefit.
25.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███████
a
If Jane does ███ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███████
This is too strong. The argument needs a way to get to the claim that Jason would benefit from knowing his supervisor was displeased, however his situation worsening otherwise is not necessary to meet this condition.
b
If Jane does ███ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ████
This is not necessary - the focus of the argument is if Jason would benefit from knowing, in which case Jane should tell him. Whether or not he could find out from other sources is not relevant.
c
If Jane tells █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██ █████ ███
It does not matter whether Jason is grateful for the information - it could benefit him even if he were ungrateful or could fail to benefit him even though he is grateful. Gratefulness is not part of the condition the argument establishes regarding if Jane should tell him.
d
Jason might eventually ███████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████
Potential positive outcomes in which Jason doesn’t find out aren’t relevant to the argument, which is specifically trying to get to the claim that Jane should tell him and therefore he should learn.
e
Jason would benefit ██ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
This explains why the condition applies to the specific example. If this were not true, and Jason would not benefit by improving his supervisor’s opinion of his work, then the premises would not support the claim that Jane should inform Jason.