Suppose I have promised to keep

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct85% picked this

   It is claimed that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want. It is also claimed that we have the obligation to

   Why this is right

   This has what we were looking for: - a conclusion that's like "it's unacceptable for these 2 things to both be true" You can't have total right to say what you please and also a duty to be civil. - evidence that's like, "these 2 things can potentially conflict with / contradict each other". Being civil will sometimes limit your right to say what you please.

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

   85%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   Some politicians could attain popularity with voters only by making extravagant promises; this, however, would deceive the people. So, since the only way for

   This conclusion doesn't sound anything like "it's unacceptable for these 2 things to both be true", so we wouldn't bother reading any closer on a first pass through these answers. The evidence does show things in tension, but a correct conclusion would have to say something like, "It follows that politicians cannot both do whatever it takes to be popular but also refrain from deceiving voters".

   5%
3. C

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match5% picked this

   If we put a lot of effort into making this report look good, the client might think we did so because we believed our

   The conclusion doesn't sound anything like "it's unacceptable for both of these things to be true", so we shouldn't invest much time on a first pass. Were we to look deeper, the evidence is also a bad match. It's not showing how two concurrent rules could potentially result in a contradiction. Instead, it's tracing out two nonconcurrent rules that would result in a similarity. In other words, it's saying "If we do X, Y will occur", but "If we don't do X, thing Y will still occur". X and not-X would never both be true at the same time. So the author isn't presenting a situation where two rules would come into conflict with each other. We either put in a lot of effort or we don't, so either one rule is triggered or the other is. The original argument is about how two rules that are both simultaneously affecting our decision making would force us into contradictory decisions.

   5%
4. D

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match3% picked this

   If creditors have legitimate claims against a business and the business has the resources to pay those debts, then the business is obliged to

   The conclusion doesn't sound like "it's unacceptable for both of these things to be true". When we say "either X or Y must be true" we're saying that at least one must be true, not that they can't both be true. Were we to look deeper, the evidence is also not a good match. It doesn't show two rules that can result in a contradiction. Instead, it shows two rules that chain together: C's have legit claims and --> B obliged --> court will B's has $ to pay debts to pay force to pay The argument then validly reasons, "since that outcome isn't true, the court did NOT force this business to pay, then at least one of those trigger ideas must not be true".

   3%
5. E

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match3% picked this

   If we extend our business hours, we will either have to hire new employees or have existing employees work overtime. But both new employees

   The conclusion doesn't sound like "it's unacceptable for both of these things to be true", so we shouldn't invest much time on this on a first pass. Were we to look deeper, the evidence is also not a good match. It doesn't show two rules that can result in a contradiction. Instead, it shows one rules with an either/or outcome, and shows that no matter which outcome you pick, labor costs will go up. In this way, it's similar to (C). It's saying "whether THIS is true or THAT is true, either way you'll get to the same idea". The evidence is supposed to be saying, "If both THIS is true and THAT is true, then sometimes you'll get to an opposite / contradictory idea".

   3%