Counselor: Hagerle sincerely apologized

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak0% picked this

   It is good to apologize for having done something wrong to a person if one is capable

   Hagerle is clearly capable of a sincere apology, since he gave one to the physician. So according to this rule, "it was good for Hagerle to apologize" to the physician. We're not sure if Hagerle is capable of sincerely apologizing to the counselor, and even if we knew that, this answer would only establish that "it would be good for Hagerle to apologize", which is a little weaker than "Hagerle owes me an apology".

   0%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   If someone tells the same lie to two different people, then neither of those lied to is owed

   This is not a rule that provides an outcome like "both are owed an apology". We could translate this into this form: You tell the same lie ? owe them both apology to two diff people or owe neither an apology That doesn't help us prove that Hagerle owes this counselor an apology, but we were never told that the physician was owed an apology, only that she received an apology. Another way to symbolize this rule, which has a "nested unless" is to add the unless (in typical "if-not" fashion) to the trigger: told same lie to two diff people don't owe and ? apology to don't owe apology to both either This rule also doesn't get as specific as the conclusion does (apology vs. sincere apology), so it would also be weak in that regard.

   3%
3. C

   Correct91% picked this

   Someone is owed a sincere apology for having been lied to by a person if someone else has already received a sincere apology for

   Why this is right

   The "if" signifies the beginning of the conditional's trigger, so this rule looks like this: someone else has received you are owed a sincere apology for the ? a sincere same lie you were told apology We can definitely match up the trigger. The physician has already received a sincere apology from Hagerle for the same lie that was told to this author. Thus, according to this rule, our author is owed a sincere apology from Hagerle.

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

   91%
4. D

   Bad Trigger Match3% picked this

   If one is capable of sincerely apologizing to someone for lying to them, then one owes that

   This rule has the right outcome, but we can't clearly establish that the trigger applies. It says: X is capable of sincerely ? X owes Y a apologizing to Y sincere apology Were we told in the evidence that Hagerle is capable of sincerely apologizing to the counselor? No. For all we know they used to date, it ended badly, and Hagerle cannot bring himself to apologize to the counselor.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   A person should not apologize to someone for telling a lie unless he or she can sincerely apologize to all others to

   This rule only allows us to conclude that someone "should not apologize", so it will be useless to us. It looks like this: X can't apologize to all X should not others whom X told the ? apologize to one of lie to people X lied to We want a rule that's like X can apologize to ? X should apologize to one of the people X lied to all X told the lie to This answer choice only has the power to say, "If you can't apologize to the counselor, then you shouldn't have apologized to the physician".

   3%