PT144 · S3 · Q23 Columnist: Although most people

This is so close, but do we know if our bill would benefit most people? No. We only know that most people favor the bill. Because of that, we can't trigger the rule. For what it's worth, the rule looks like this: Well functioning democracy and bill will pass bill benefits most people → into law w/in and a few years bill doesn't violate any BHR's

Here is what this rule looks like: Well functioning Democracy and bill will bill opposed by influential → eventually but favored by most pass Do we know that this bill is "opposed by influential people" and "favored by most people"? We know the 2nd one explicitly. But we were never told about who opposes this bill, just that influential people would be adversely affected. It's a baby step of common sense from one to the next, but Principle questions are pretty good at directly matching what we know from the evidence. The other problem with this answer is that in order to trigger the contrapositive and thus conclude that this apparently isn't a well-functioning democracy, we would need to know that this bill will not eventually pass. Do we know that this bill will never pass? No, we only know it will definitely not be passed for many years. Since we don't know whether the bill will eventually (at some point in eternity) pass, we can't trigger the contrapositive of this rule and get to → ~Well Functioning Democracy

Out of Scope: influential opponents Reversal (if anything) Here is what this rule looks like: Well functioning Dem Bill favored by most and → will not pass within opponents of bill a few years include very influential The conversational way to disqualify this is to think, "I have no idea whether the bill's opponents are influential or not". The author never talked about anyone who opposes it. She merely talked about influential people who would be adversely affected by it. We'd have to add our own assumption that "if adversely affected → oppose it". That's reasonable but definitely a leap. I'm in favor of raising my taxes so that uninsured people have healthcare. I'm in favor of raising my taxes so that we can tackle climate change. I am adversely affected by those bills but still support them. We know that this bill that is favored by most will not pass within a few years. So we know that the outcome is true. That doesn't do anything for us. We can't read backwards to the left side. In order for this rule to prove that we're not in a well-functioning democracy, we'd need to know that "the bill WILL pass within a few years, even though it's opposed by very influential people". In a well-functioning democracy, that would never be the case. It would only pass if its opponents were not-influential. But since don't know "the bill will pass within a few years, even though the opponents are very influential", this rule gives us no way to prove we're NOT in a well functioning democracy.

Well functioning Dem bill favored by most and → and Bill passed into law bill doesn't violate basic human rights We have no way to trigger either side of this rule. We don't know if we're in a well functioning democracy, nor has the bill passed into law, so we can't trigger the sufficient condition. And the bill we know about is favored by most and consistent with basic human rights, so we can't trigger the contrapositive. Thus, this rule is useless to us.