Many employers treat their employees fairly

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: only when5% picked this

   some employers act in a morally reprehensible manner only when they harm those

   This argument is only concerned with a time when employers aren't acting in a morally reprehensible way. The author doesn't need to assume anything about the cases in which (or frequency with which) employers do act morally reprehensible. It wouldn't hurt this argument at all to negate this and say, "hey, author, sometimes employers act in morally reprehensible ways with people who aren't employees". The author would be like, "Sure. That's true. So what?"

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong: no employers5% picked this

   no employers who act morally use their employees as a means to

   The author is only saying that "many" employers treat their employees fairly, and using them as a counterexample to a general principle. She doesn't have to assume anything about the total set of all employers who act morally.

   5%
3. C

   Correct82% picked this

   some or all employers use their employees as a means to

   Why this is right

   In positive form, this answer is just suggesting, "The author was assuming that the crap he said about employers treating employees fairly is somehow relevant to the stuff he's talking about in the conclusion about using someone as a means to their own ends". This was one of the three possible answers we predicted. If we negated this, it would say "no employers ever use their employees as a means to their own ends", which would destroy this argument by making the example of "fair employers" completely irrelevant to a generalization about "using people as a means to your own ends".

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

   82%
4. D

   Too Strong3% picked this

   making a profit from the labor of others is personally advantageous

   Too Strong: never Out of Scope: profit The author never discusses profit and certainly never commits herself to a crazy-extreme claim that "profiting from others' labor is never harmful"

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: impossible5% picked this

   it is not possible to harm someone else without treating that person as a means

   The author never commits to an extreme position like "it's impossible to harm someone else unless you're treating them as a means to your ends". I'm pretty sure the author is still okay with saying "punching someone in the face harms them". Nothing in her paragraph ruled that out.

   5%