The clinic administrator responds

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak: only needs minor tweak6% picked this

   Demonstrating that the hospital auditor’s conclusion, though broadly correct, stands in need of

   The second person isn't 90% agreeing with the auditor's conclusion, saying "yeah, you're basically right. We are violating the terms of the agreement." The second person is more defiantly arguing that this money is being used in a way that is in line with the agreement, since it is ultimately aimed at minimizing the suffering of patients.

   6%
2. B

   Out of Scope: is vs. ought6% picked this

   Showing that the hospital auditor’s argument fails to separate what is the case from what ought

   There's nothing in the 2nd person's response that treads on the distinction between describing what is and saying what should be. The only distinction we might say the 2nd person is leaning on is one between "immediately minimizing patients' suffering" and "indirectly / ultimately leading to a minimization of patients' suffering".

   6%
3. C

   Opposite8% picked this

   Reminding the hospital auditor that, in the case at issue, being told what to do is tantamount to being

   When we say "X is tantamount to Y" (f.e. telling your kids that Santa exists is tantamount to lying to your kids), it means that the first thing is essentially no different from the second thing. Our 2nd person is definitely not saying, "being told to spend all this money on minimizing patients' suffering is essentially the same as being told how to spend all this money on minimizing patients' suffering". If anything, the 2nd person would be closer to arguing, "Hey, they just told us to spend this money on minimizing suffering. They didn't tell us how to do that. If we think that funding better early diagnosis leads to more long-term reduction in suffering, we can interpret their mandate however we see fit."

   8%
4. D

   Out of Scope: severity17% picked this

   Arguing that, in assessing the severity of a violation, the reasoning motivating the violation needs

   The 2nd person is not conceding that they are violating the terms of the donation and hoping to downplay the severity of the violation by explaining its noble motives. The 2nd person is making a case that they are not violating the terms of the donation, because the ultimate intent of allocating money towards early diagnosis technologies is still in line with the spirit of the terms of the donation.

   17%
5. E

   Correct63% picked this

   Reinterpreting a key phrase in the hospital auditor’s argument so as to undermine an assumption

   Why this is right

   Yikes, this is a tough answer to match up. The key phrase is that the money should be "used to minimize patients' suffering". The auditor's argument is assuming that this phrase means that "using money to minimize patients' suffering = letting that money flow directly to patients". Meanwhile, the administrator is arguing that we don't have to interpret "using money to minimize patients' suffering" in that direct sense. We would still be spending money to minimize patients' suffering indirectly, in the long run, by funding research that we hope will lead to earlier detection of mental disorders. Put another way, the auditor is assuming that "minimize patients' suffering" should be interpreted as "find existing patients who are suffering, and reduce that suffering". The administrator is seeking to interpret "minimize patients' suffering" as being compatible with "do things to prevent suffering from happening in the first place".

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   63%