Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the airline had overbooked the flight. █████ █ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ █ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █ ███ █ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███ ███████
██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ███ █████████████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███████
We're focusing on Jamie's argument, but Arnold provides important context. Arnold tells us that he missed a business meeting because he couldn't take the flight he booked. This is because the flight was overbooked, so he was denied a seat. And even if it hadn't been, the flight was cancelled due to bad weather.
From this set of facts, Jamie concludes that the airline does not morally owe Arnold compensation for denying him a seat. This is because Arnold would have missed the meeting regardless—due to the weather, if nothing else.
Jamie's argument gives us a
The principle begins "an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations." From this, we can already figure out that we need to add a necessary condition. Furthermore, that necessary condition must be denied by Jamie's premise, letting us validly deny the sufficient condition—that Arnold is owed compensation.
A principle that, if established, █████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ██████████ █ █████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ ████████████
if the only ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████
(A) introduces a sufficient condition: if overbooking is the only reason, then the airline owes compensation. But Jamie concludes that the airline doesn't owe compensation. To get there, we need a necessary condition for Jamie's premise to deny.
only if there ██ █ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █ █████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████
(B) introduces a necessary condition, which is a good start. But this necessary condition isn't denied by Jamie's premise, so it doesn't justify the argument. Jamie points out that overbooking isn't the only reason Arnold missed his flight—but it's still a reason. That affirms (B), which doesn't guarantee that the airline owes compensation, but doesn't deny it either.
only if the █████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████
(C) introduces a necessary condition, which is what we're looking for. And this necessary condition is denied by Jamie's premise that Arnold would have missed the flight anyway. That lets Jamie deny the sufficient condition that the airline owes compensation, thus justifying the argument.
even if the ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████
(D) introduces a sufficient condition: (even) if weather is the only reason, then the airline owes compensation. But Jamie concludes that the airline doesn't owe compensation. To get there, we need a necessary condition for Jamie's premise to deny.
even if the █████████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████
(E) introduces a sufficient condition: (even) if overbooking wasn't the only problem, then the airline owes compensation. But Jamie concludes that the airline doesn't owe compensation. To get there, we need a necessary condition for Jamie's premise to deny.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic