Philosopher: We should not disapprove

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match3% picked this

   A law enforcement officer should not act upon illegally obtained information, even though such action might, in some cases, result

   Illegally obtained information is potentially true information. So this principle would say we shouldn't disapprove of someone publicizing this information or obtaining it in the first place. But instead it's saying that a cop should not act upon this info. That doesn't match the principle at all.

   3%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   Scientific research should not be restricted even if it could lead to harmful applications, such as the

   Why this is right

   Scientific research potentially involves the unearthing of truths. So this principle would say we shouldn't be mad at science if it discovers something that we find uncomfortable or potentially harmful. This answer is talking about knowledge that, once disseminated, could lead to pernicious things for society (harmful applications). And the value judgment is "X should not be restricted", which is somewhere in the ballpark of "should not disapprove of X". It's a stretchy answer but the best available match.

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

   79%
3. C

   Weak Match4% picked this

   A physician should never withhold the truth from a patient, except in cases where depression induced by bad news might

   The first half of this seems to fit the principle, because it's conveying the idea of "let's just face the truth". But the exception cited has no match for the original principle. And "We should not disapprove of this truth coming out" is pretty different from "physicians should not keep the truth from coming out". The former is about us, not having a critical reaction to the truth, once it's come out. The latter is about some specific group of people keeping the truth from coming out.

   4%
4. D

   Weak Match14% picked this

   Investigative journalists who employ illegal means of obtaining information should not be subjected to moral disapproval, if the revelation of that information does more

   The first clause of this answer is a great match, since it's saying "WE should not disapprove of people who unearth truths". But ... this is a conditional claim. This answer is saying "we shouldn't disapprove as long as revealing that info does more good than harm". That's not a match for the principle. The principle was saying, "even if it does more harm than good, we still shouldn't disapprove of the truth coming out".

   14%
5. E

   Bad Match1% picked this

   A poem need not adhere too strictly to the truth. Art is exempt from such requirements—it matters only that the poem provoke

   This has nothing to do with uncomfortable truths coming out. In fact, it's telling poets that they can feel free to not tell the truth.

   1%