Claude: When I'm having lunch

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct84% picked this

   In matters involving personal preference, performing an action without first ascertaining whether it is appropriate in the specific circumstances should not be taken as

   Why this is right

   The case of preemptively salting your food is indeed a matter involving personal preference. The salter is performing the salting action without first ascertaining whether this specific restaurant meal needs salt. But Larissa thinks this isn't good evidence of faulty thinking. It's reasonable to have a policy of salting your meals at restaurants if you developed that policy by noticing that in general restaurant meals didn't have enough salt for your preference.

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

   84%
2. B

   Out of Scope: job-related behavior, character4% picked this

   In professional decision-making contexts, those who have the responsibility of judging other people's suitability for a job should not use observations of job-related behavior

   Claude's evaluation of job candidates is indeed a professional-decision making context, in which he has the responsibility to judge someone else's suitability for a job. But this principle is about making observations of job-related behavior, whereas Claude is observing whether someone preemptively salts their soup, which is presumably not job-related behavior. He's also inferring conclusions about the candidate's judgment, not their character.

   4%
3. C

   Weak Premise Match7% picked this

   General conclusions regarding a job candidate's suitability for a position should not be based exclusively on observations of the candidate's behavior in situations that

   This is close. It gives a rule that says, "If it isn't directly job related or it isn't indicative of a pattern of behavior that the candidate engages in, then you shouldn't be using it to judge a job candidate's suitability." But Claude would say, "this is indicative of a pattern: a preemptive soup-salter will have the pattern of making judgments without having all the required information"

   7%
4. D

   Out of Scope: generally expected norms3% picked this

   Individuals whose behavior in specific circumstances does not conform to generally expected norms should not automatically be considered unconcerned with meeting social expectations, because

   Nothing in either person's example had anything to do with generally expected social norms. It's about personal preferences, and whether or not it makes sense to take an action with only incomplete information.

   3%
5. E

   Opposite: lapses of rationality2% picked this

   Evidence that a particular individual uses bad decision-making strategies in matters of personal taste should not be considered sufficient to warrant a negative assessment

   Larissa isn't arguing, "Yes, the preemptive salting is dumb, but don't let this one lapse in rationality taint a job candidate in your mind." Instead, Larissa is arguing, "It's perfectly reasonable/rational for someone to preemptively salt, just like it's reasonable to wear a sweater to a grocery store or throw away a credit card offer in the mail."

   2%