Principle and Parallel Reasoning Flashcards

A principle holds: 'Public officials should recuse themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial stake.' Alderman Torres argues she need not recuse herself from a vote on a downtown development project. Which fact best supports her position?

Answer: Torres sold her stake in a business near the development site before the vote was scheduled.

If Torres divested her financial interest before the vote, she no longer has a personal financial stake, so the principle's recusal condition is not triggered.

Which of the following arguments most closely parallels the structure of: 'If a law is unjust, citizens are morally permitted to disobey it. This tax law is unjust. Therefore, citizens are morally permitted to disobey this tax law'?

Answer: If a contract is fraudulent, it is void. This contract is fraudulent. Therefore, this contract is void.

Both arguments apply a conditional rule (If P then Q) to a case where P is true, and validly conclude Q — option A mirrors this modus ponens structure precisely.

Ethicist: 'We are obligated to prevent great harm when we can do so at little cost to ourselves. Donating $50 to famine relief can save a child's life and costs me little. Therefore, I am obligated to donate.' A critic objects that this principle would require constant sacrifice since there is always suffering to prevent. This objection is best described as:

Answer: A reductio ad absurdum showing the principle has unacceptable implications if consistently applied.

The critic extends the principle to its logical extreme to show it demands constant sacrifice, a reductio strategy that challenges the principle's acceptability.

Principle: 'A business practice is deceptive if it creates a false impression in the mind of a reasonable consumer, regardless of whether any statement made is technically false.' An advertiser claims its practice is not deceptive. Which finding best supports the advertiser's claim?

Answer: A survey finds that no reasonable consumer came away with a false impression from the advertisement.

The principle hinges on whether a false impression was created in a reasonable consumer's mind; survey evidence that no such impression arose directly negates the principle's condition.

Which of the following most accurately identifies the flaw in this reasoning: 'No one complained about the construction noise last month. Therefore, the construction noise did not bother anyone last month'?

Answer: Treating the absence of complaints as proof that no dissatisfaction existed.

The argument assumes that people who are bothered will always complain, ignoring reasons why bothered individuals might stay silent, which is an argument from silence fallacy.

A principle states: 'Evidence obtained through violations of a defendant's constitutional rights must be excluded from trial.' A prosecutor argues the evidence should be admitted. Which additional principle would, if accepted, most directly support the prosecutor's argument?

Answer: Police who violate constitutional rights should face disciplinary action as the primary remedy.

If the primary remedy for constitutional violations is officer discipline rather than exclusion, the exclusionary rule loses its justification and the prosecutor can argue for admission.

Argument: 'Some politicians who accept corporate donations vote against consumer protection laws. Senator Dale accepts corporate donations. Therefore, Senator Dale will vote against consumer protection laws.' The reasoning most closely parallels which of the following?

Answer: Some athletes who train at altitude improve their performance. Coach Rivera trains at altitude. Therefore, Rivera will improve her performance.

Both arguments move from 'some members of group X have property Y' to 'this member of group X will have property Y,' committing the same fallacious inference.