Terry: Months ago, I submitted

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct77% picked this

   Consumers should avoid attributing dishonesty to a corporation when the actions of the corporation might instead

   Why this is right

   This is a conditional, signified by the sufficient (LEFT side) indicator word when. actions of corporation consumer should avoid might be explained by ? attributing dishonesty incompetence to the corporation If Terry's argument violated this principle, then it DID the left side but DIDN'T do the right side. is LEFT side true? Might the actions of the insurance company might be explained by incompetence? Sure. An incompetent company might keep losing the submitted claims, might not call him back, might mess up processing his claim, might mess up mailing out the payment. is RIGHT side being followed? Did the author, a consumer, avoid attributing dishonesty to the corporation? No, Terry didn't. He concluded that the company is deliberately (dishonestly) avoiding paying him for the submitted insurance claim. Thus, Terry violated this principle. The left side applied, the right was defied. (Hey, I just made that up and now will be cursed with saying that as I teach, until I die)

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

   77%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   Consumers should attempt to keep themselves informed of corporate behavior that directly

   This could be written as a conditional corporate behavior you should attempt directly affects your ? to keep yourself interest informed of it Terry is following, not violating, this principle. The corporate behavior of "have they / have they not received and started processing my claim" is something that directly affects Terry's interest and he is definitely attempting to keep himself informed about where the process is at, by frequently calling and contacting them.

   1%
3. C

   Opposite3% picked this

   In judging the quality of service of a corporation, a consumer should rely primarily on the consumer’s own

   Terry is definitely following this principle. His conclusion is judging the quality of service (it sucks) and his evidence is relying primarily on his own experience with this insurance claim.

   3%
4. D

   Opposite, if anything8% picked this

   In judging the morality of a corporation’s behavior, as opposed to that of an individual,

   Terry, in reaching the conclusion that this insurance company is just messing with him, seems to be failing to consider any mitigating circumstances for why his claim might be getting delayed non-deliberately. It's a little strong to say that Terry is judging the morality of the corporation, but calling them "dishonest" is certainly on the way there. So it seems like Terry is, in a way, judging the morality of the company and ignoring mitigating circumstances in saying, "They must be doing this on purpose".

   8%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal10% picked this

   Corporations ought to make available to a customer any information the customer requests that is relevant

   This is a principle about how a corporation should behave. Terry is not a corporation, so Terry can't violate this principle.

   10%