If a corporation obtains funds

Answer choices

1. A

   Trap3% picked this

   If a driver causes an accident because the automobile being driven was not properly maintained, that driver should be required from then on to

   Bad Trigger Match (No Gain from Wrongdoing) The driver who was in the wrong didn't gain anything from his wrongdoing, so there's no way to match up the principle.

   3%
2. B

   Trap24% picked this

   If a factory is found to have been recklessly violating pollution laws, that factory should be required to make the expenditures necessary to bring

   Bad Trigger Match (No Gain from Wrongdoing) The factory who was in the wrong didn't gain anything (explicitly) from its wrongdoing, so there's no way to match up the principle. Common sense would tell us that the factory probably saves some money by not complying with environmental code, but we need to explicitly talk about the money-saved, and then hear that the punishment is not just compliance but also "cancel out all that money they saved when they weren't complying".

   24%
3. C

   Trap6% picked this

   If someone is sentenced to perform community service, the court has a responsibility to ensure that the community at large rather than a

   Bad Trigger Match (No Gain from Wrongdoing) This goes straight to the punishment, but we need to know about the characteristics of the offense. Did the wrongdoer gain anything from their misdeed? The punishment here is about benefiting the community, but in the principle the punishment is about negating any benefit that was obtained by the wrongdoer.

   6%
4. D

   Trap7% picked this

   If an athlete is found to have used banned performance-enhancing substances, that athlete should be prohibited from participating

   Bad Conclusion Match (No Gain from Wrongdoing) Again, the athlete isn't identified to have gained from this wrongdoing, so we can't complete the principle's instructions to make sure that the penalty cancels out this illicit gain.

   7%
5. E

   Correct59% picked this

   If a convicted criminal writes a memoir describing the details of that criminal's crime, any proceeds of the book should be donated to a

   Why this is right

   Here we have a wrongdoer who stands to profit in some way from the crime (wrote a memoir about it, which might make the criminal author some publishing revenue), and the punishment is designed to cancel out that illicit gain. Any money the author would make off this book (and thus off his crime) will not go to him. The fact that it's going to a charity is immaterial filler. The principle just wants us to make sure that the punished person doesn't profit from their wrongdoing. It doesn't matter where the money does go, as long as it's not to the benefit of that wrongdoer.

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

   59%