PT151 S2 Q4 ExplanationFood company engineer: I stand

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match2% picked this

   One is justified in performing an act if other people are also planning to perform

   This rule would look like this: if other people are planning then it's okay to do something like X ? to do X The outcome matches the Conclusion well enough. But was there a premise saying that other people are planning to dump small amounts of chemicals into the local river? No, it didn't say anyone was actually planning to do so. The evidence was just saying "IF someone decided to do so, the author wouldn't object".

   2%
2. B

   Bad Trigger Match0% picked this

   One should always choose to act in a way that will benefit the greatest

   This rule would look like this: if action X would benefit the then you greatest number of people ? should do X The outcome doesn't match the Conclusion that well. Our author's conclusion is that "I stand by my decision", meaning "it's defensible / it's okay". This seems to go one step farther by saying "we should do it". But the more glaring disconnect is the trigger. We definitely never heard that "dumping small amounts of chemicals into the local river" would benefit the greatest number of people.

   0%
3. C

   Correct98% picked this

   One is justified in performing an act if one is willing to submit oneself to the consequences of that action

   Why this is right

   This rule would look like this: if you're willing to submit then it's yourself to the consequences ? okay to do X of doing X or having someone else do X The outcome matches the Conclusion well enough. Was the author saying that she is willing to submit herself to the consequences of dumping small amounts of chemicals into the local river? Yes! She was saying that she fishes in the river and will continue to do so. If dumping chemicals in the river actually taints the river water or poisons the fish in there, then someone fishing in the river will potentially be exposed to that harm. And she says she will continue to fish in the river. Was she saying she's willing to submit herself to the consequences of someone else dump small amounts of chemicals into the local river? Yes, she said she'd have no problem if other food manufacturers do what this company is doing (dumping small amounts of chemicals).

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

   98%
4. D

   Bad Outcome Match0% picked this

   One should never perform an act until one has fully analyzed all the ways in which that

   This rule would look like this: if you haven't fully analyzed then it's not all the ways an act ? okay to do X could impact others The author's conclusion is that is was okay to dump chemicals. This principle would only help someone conclude that they should not have performed an action yet.

   0%
5. E

   Bad Trigger Match0% picked this

   One has the right to perform an act as long as that act does not

   This rule would look like this: if action X isn't going then you have to harm anyone else ? to right to do X The outcome matches the Conclusion well enough. But was there a premise saying that dumping small amounts of chemicals into the local river will not harm anyone else? No, it actually says that there's some evidence that this material may pose health problems.

   0%