Guideline: It is improper for public officials

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Public officials, when fulfilling their duties, should be held to higher standards

   This doesn’t contain any language about “benefiting, or appearing to benefit” the mayor, so it’s functionally useless to us. We need to know that “helping out a relative = benefiting, or appearing to benefit, you”

   1%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   Publicly funded contracts should be awarded based primarily on cost and the reliability

   This doesn’t contain any language about “benefiting, or appearing to benefit” the mayor, so it’s functionally useless to us. We need to know that “helping out a relative = benefiting, or appearing to benefit, you”.

   3%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal5% picked this

   Creating the appearance of impropriety is as blameworthy as

   This doesn’t contain any language about “benefiting, or appearing to benefit” the mayor, so it’s functionally useless to us. We need to know that “helping out a relative = benefiting, or appearing to benefit, you”.

   5%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Awarding a contract to a financially troubled business should be regarded as

   This doesn’t contain any language about “benefiting, or appearing to benefit” the mayor, so it’s functionally useless to us. We could maybe say that the relative’s business was “financially troubled”, although we’re only told that it would have been in financial trouble otherwise. But even if we go along with that, this answer just allows us to say that the mayor’s move as excessively risky. We need to establish that it benefited, or appeared to benefit, the mayor.

   1%
5. E

   Correct90% picked this

   Benefiting one's family or friends should be regarded as

   Why this is right

   This is actually the only answer even offering us language matching the trigger of the guideline that is being applied. You’re not justified in applying a rule to someone unless they qualify under the terms of the rule. If a movie theater says, “People under the age of 17 must be accompanied by an adult or guardian to see this R-rated movie” and then they kick you, a 25 year old person, out of an R-rated movie because you don’t have a guardian with you, you’ll say, “You’re not justified in applying this guideline to me! I don’t qualify under the condition of the rule. The rule is triggered by being under the age of 17. Since I’m not under 17, the rule doesn’t apply to me.” Similarly, to justify applications of principles / guidelines, all we’re doing is making sure that the trigger of the rule applies to a given situation. In this case, the trigger is that “awarding the contract would benefit, or appear to benefit, you”. This answer says that if awarding the contract would benefit your relative (family), then we regard it as benefiting you too, and thus the rule may be applied to you.

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

   90%