It has been claimed that an action

Answer choices

1. A

   Action Wasn't Harmful37% picked this

   Pamela wrote a letter attempting to cause trouble between Edward and his friend; this action of Pamela’s was morally bad, even though the letter,

   This is concluding "morally bad", so we'll look at the possible ways to trigger that. 1. Harm was intended or 2. Reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm Does the argument establish either of those? Yes, the argument establishes that Pamela intended to cause trouble, i.e. harm. The problem is the argument also establishes that she didn't cause trouble. Our 2nd rule only pertains to "an action that harms another person". Pamela's action didn't harm any other person, so we can't use the 2nd rule to conclude the action was morally bad.

   37%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   In order to secure a promotion, Jeffrey devoted his own time to resolving a backlog of medical benefits claims; Jeffrey’s action was morally good

   This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally good", which we are powerless to do. Rule 1 allows us to prove that certain actions are NOT morally good. Rule 2 allows us to prove that certain harmful actions are morally bad. Doesn't benefit someone else action not or ? morally good Not performed w/ that intent Harm intended or ? harmful action morally bad Reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm

   3%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   Intending to help her elderly neighbor by clearing his walkway after a snowstorm, Teresa inadvertently left ice on his steps; because of this exposed

   This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally good", which we are powerless to do. It's also concluding that an action had "bad consequences", which we have no way of proving. Rule 1 allows us to prove that certain actions are NOT morally good. Rule 2 allows us to prove that certain harmful actions are morally bad. Doesn't benefit someone else action not or ? morally good Not performed w/ that intent Harm intended or ? harmful action morally bad Reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm

   5%
4. D

   Bad Trigger Match2% picked this

   Marilees, asked by a homeless man for food, gave the man her own sandwich; however, because the man tried to talk while he was

   This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally bad", so we know we need to look at the 2nd rule. First, as we learned from (A), we have to establish that an action caused harm to someone else. Marilees' action of giving the homeless man her sandwich did cause harm to the homeless man, in the sense that it led to him choking on the sandwich. Can we trigger either of the conditions in rule 2? 1. was harm intended? (no it makes no sense to say Marilees was trying to harm the homeless man by giving him a sandwich) 2. would reasonable forethought have shown that giving him a sandwich would likely result in choking? (no, that's not a likely outcome of eating a sandwich)

   2%
5. E

   Correct53% picked this

   Jonathan agreed to watch his three-year-old niece while she played but, becoming engrossed in conversation, did not see her run into the street where

   Why this is right

   This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally bad", so we know we need to look at the 2nd rule. As we learned from (A), we have to establish that an action caused harm to someone else. Jonathan's action of ignoring his niece while she ran into the street did cause her harm (she got hit by a bike). Can we trigger either of the conditions in rule 2? 1. was harm intended? (no, we're told he intended no harm) 2. would reasonable forethought have shown that ignoring a three year old you're supposed to be watching could likely cause harm? Yeah, I guess so. Ultimately we're stuck with this answer as best available. It's certainly not fair to say reasonable forethought would tell us, "If we ignore the 3 year old we're watching, they're likely to run into the street and get hit by a bike". That's too specific and exotic a scenario to be likely. But it's fair to say that reasonable forethought would tell us, "If I ignore the 3 year old I'm supposed to be watching, that could be likely to cause harm". This test question was probably written by the parent of a young child, because they're taking it as common sense that if you don't monitor a 3 year old's behavior and whereabouts, then harm will likely result. That seems pretty strong, but it's definitely fair to say, "You should know that if you're the one responsible for watching a 3 year old and you start ignoring what they're doing, you're creating a situation that is ripe for trouble. The kid might fall down the stairs or color on the walls or eat something that isn't food."

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

   53%