Self-study
Principle: Support If one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it, then one should not criticize that form of behavior in another.
████████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████
The Principle
The principle states: if one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it, then one should not criticize that behavior in another person.
The "does not" applies to both parts: does not criticize the behavior in oneself, and does not vow to stop it. So the principle triggers when both are true. If someone (1) does not criticize the behavior in themselves AND (2) does not vow to stop it, then they should not criticize that behavior in others.
If-then form: If you don't criticize a behavior in yourself, and you don't vow to stop that behavior, then you should not criticize that behavior in others.
What's Missing from the Application?
The application concludes: if Shimada doesn't vow to stop being tardy, he shouldn't criticize McFeney for tardiness. Notice that the application mentions only one of the two conditions from the principle (not vowing to stop). It doesn't say anything about whether Shimada criticizes tardiness in himself.
For the application to follow from the principle, we need to fill in that missing piece. We need to learn that Shimada does not criticize tardiness in himself. If we know that, then combined with the application's "if" clause (he doesn't vow to stop being tardy), both parts of the sufficient condition of the principle are met, and the conclusion follows.
21.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Both McFeney and ███████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ████
This tells us that Shimada criticizes McFeney's tardiness without criticizing his own. That's exactly what we want. If Shimada doesn't criticize tardiness in himself (from (A)) and doesn't vow to stop being tardy (from the application's "if" clause), then both conditions of the principle are met, and we can conclude that Shimada should not criticize McFeney for tardiness.
b
McFeney is regularly ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████
The fact that Shimada is almost never tardy doesn't tell us whether he criticizes tardiness in himself. Someone who is rarely tardy could still criticize tardiness in themselves on the rare occasions it happens, or they could not. Since we don't know, we can't confirm that the sufficient condition of the principle is met.
c
McFeney often criticizes ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██████
This tells us that McFeney criticizes Shimada, but we need to know whether Shimada criticizes tardiness in himself. The fact that neither of them vows to stop being tardy satisfies one condition, but we still don't know whether Shimada criticizes his own tardiness. Without that, we can't confirm both parts of the sufficient condition are met.
d
Shimada criticizes McFeney ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████████
This actually works against the application. (D) tells us Shimada does criticize himself for occasional tardiness. That means that one part of the sufficient condition of the principle (not criticizing the behavior in oneself) is not met. In that case, we can't conclude that Shimada shouldn't criticize tardiness in others.
e
Neither McFeney nor ███████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████████
As with (B), the fact that Shimada is not regularly tardy doesn't tell us whether he criticizes tardiness in himself. The principle doesn't care about whether Shimada is tardy. It cares about whether he criticizes tardiness in himself or vows to stop it.