Etiquette firmly opposes both obscene

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match5% picked this

   Neighbors should not be gruff or unfriendly to one another when they meet

   Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. Being gruff or unfriendly does not match obscene/malicious talk, nor does it match discussing offensive, disturbing or controversial ideas.

   5%
2. B

   Bad Trigger/Outcome Match3% picked this

   When prosecutors elicit testimony from a cooperative witness they should do so

   This answer is saying "they should avoid intensive questioning". Our principle allows us to say that "controversial ideas should be discussed in a civil manner". Those don't seem relevant to each other. Whether or not you're asking a lot of questions is very different from whether or not you're being un-civil. So the normative claim in this answer is a poor match for the normative Outcome of our principle. Maybe one could argue that it's rude, i.e. un-civil, to ask a lot of questions. If so, then you could also eliminate this answer because it doesn't connect to anything in the Trigger of our principles. Intensive questioning just means that you're asking a lot of questions. It doesn't have anything to do with obscenity, malice, controversial/disturbing ideas.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Trigger Match3% picked this

   There should be restrictions on speech only if a large majority of the population finds the

   Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. But this answer is saying If the population that finds then there certain speech offensive → shouldn't be and hateful is less than any legal a large majority restriction We know that etiquette is not committed to the idea that speech needs to be restricted by law, but this rule is a very specific idea centering around whether the offended group is smaller than a large majority, and there's nothing in the text that matches up with that concept.

   3%
4. D

   Weak Trigger Match10% picked this

   The journalists at a news conference should not ask a politician potentially embarrassing questions about

   Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. The word "controversial" makes it seem like we should be looking at the 2nd principle. Is a news conference an appropriate situation to discuss offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas? It could be. Sometimes we need news conferences to alert the public to a terrible tragedy, which would be disturbing. If we accept that this is potentially a suitable setting for discussing inflammatory ideas, then etiquette would say that we should discuss / express these ideas in a civil manner. Would asking a politician a potentially embarrassing question be un-civil? That would be a big stretch. Journalists are supposed to ask people in power tough questions. The fact that the question is potentially embarrassing doesn't make it un-civil. You could ask Joe Biden in a civil way, "Do you have any regrets about how the withdrawal from Afghanistan was executed? and that is potentially embarrassing for him (if he doesn't want to talk about the shortcomings) but not un-civil.

   10%
5. E

   Correct80% picked this

   The moderator of a panel discussion of a divisive moral issue should not allow participants

   Why this is right

   Since this answer is saying "they shouldn't do this", it needs to match one of our triggers: 1. obscene / malicious talk 2. offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas in an inappropriate situation or in an un-civili manner. The word "divisive" makes it seem like we should be looking at the 2nd principle. Is a panel discussion of a divisive moral issue an appropriate situation to discuss offensive / disturbing / controversial ideas? Yes, definitely! If we can't discuss them at a debate centered around them, then where can we discuss them? So our principle is saying "you should not be un-civil". If debate participants are engaging in name-calling, then they're not being civil. So etiquette would counsel the participants to stop what they're doing or counsel the moderator to stop them.

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

   80%