Letter to the editor: You say that

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match Weakens, if anything6% picked this

   Money stolen from a burglar should be given to that

   The argument is about whether or not "stealing" from burglars' wages is justified, not about where should this stolen money go. The other problem is that in this proposal, the money being confiscated is going to a fund for victims of burglary; it's not being given directly to that burglar's victims. In that sense, this principle actually seems to go against this proposal being okay.

   6%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal15% picked this

   Burglars are obligated to provide compensation to the same individuals

   This principle is about what burglars should do, but the conclusion isn't about the actions of burglars. The conclusion is about what we can or can't do in regards to burglars' wages. Also, just like with (A), this principle would support the idea that money confiscated from a burglar's wages should go directly to their victims, not go into some general fund for burglary victims.

   15%
3. C

   Correct58% picked this

   The motive prompting an action determines whether or not that action

   Why this is right

   This is one of those correct answers on Strengthen+Principle that feels less like a linking idea and more like just a generic strengthening idea. It still has the hallmark of every correct Strengthen+Principle answer, in that half of its language refers to the evidence and half to the conclusion. "the motive prompting an action" = confiscating wages in order to fund an account for burglary victims "whether that action is justified" = even if this is a form of stealing, it's still justified This author is probably accepting that stealing, in general, is wrong, but that it's okay to "steal" from a burglar's wages because you're doing it for a just cause (to fund an account for victims of burglary). Since the author thinks the reason we're confiscating this money is what makes it a justified act of stealing, she must be assuming that "the motive for why we do something determines whether it's morally justified or not". Because that's what makes this form of stealing okay, while other forms of stealing are not.

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

   58%
4. D

   Reversed Logic If-Conclusion18% picked this

   A crime is justified only if it is a means of compensating people

   We can throw out this answer as soon as we see that it's putting the Conclusion on the Left side of the arrow. The conclusion of the argument should match the Right side of the arrow. This rule looks like this: If a crime then it's a means of providing is justified ? just compensation The reverse of this would be a pretty good match for the argument.

   18%
5. E

   Weakens2% picked this

   Stealing is never justified even if it benefits someone who has been

   This goes explicitly against the author's conclusion.

   2%