Professor: It has been argued

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match6% picked this

   If politicians should avoid conflicts of interest, then judges should avoid conflicts of

   If this answer simply said "judges should avoid conflicts of interest", then knowing what we were told about electing judges, this would strengthen the idea that judges shouldn't be elected. But this answer is conditional, so it only has any power if you trigger it. Can we trigger it? Were we told that politicians should avoid conflicts of interest? Nope. So this answer does nothing for us.

   6%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Special interests should not make offers of campaign contributions to those running

   This is a principle that would help us say what special interests should / shouldn't do. We're looking for a principle that would help us say whether judges should / shouldn't be elected. So this is nowhere close to the right type of wording.

   2%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match16% picked this

   Judges should be appointed to their positions only if doing so ensures that they will usually be able

   Because "only if" signifies the right side idea, this is saying should → appointment ensures be usually no conflicts appointed of interest If we contrapose this, then we have a rule that says, if there usually is conflict of interest, then judges should not be appointed. That's a bad match for our conclusion, which is "judges should not be elected". The conclusion actually implies we should stick with our current system of appointing judges, so this answer would only help us to disprove the conclusion.

   16%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   If judges should be appointed, then it is likely that there are other public offices that should be changed

   This, structurally, is useless for the same reason (C) was. It's not a rule that helps us to prove "judges should not be elected". Bizarrely, it's another rule that allows you to prove "judges should not be appointed", which is the opposite of our conclusion. Remember, that principles (or conditionals) only allow you to prove/conclude the idea to the right of the arrow. This rule is written should be appointed → xyz So we would contrapose it to see its resemblance to the conclusion, ~xyz → should not be appointed

   2%
5. E

   Correct74% picked this

   No public office for which election campaigning would be likely to produce conflicts of interest should be changed from an

   Why this is right

   No A's are B = A → ~B So this rule reads like this: Public office for should not be which election changed from campaigning would → an appointed office be likely to produce to an elected office conflicts of interest Is judging a public office for which campaigning would be likely to produce conflicts of interest? Yes. Were they to have to campaign, it is likely that they would accept campaign contributions, which is well-known to lead to conflicts of interest. Since we can trigger this rule, we can say that "judges should not be changed from appointed to elected officers", which is a great match for our Conclusion.

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

   74%