dan Wrote:18. (B)
Question Type: Identify the Flaw
The author assumes that most people would place higher moral value on protecting a family member than following laws. But what if this isn’t the case? What if most people actually think that the morality of following laws has higher moral value than protecting a family member? The author fails to consider this. If it were true, the argument would be destroyed. Answer (B) is correct.
(A) is incorrect. The argument does NOT make a broad generalization. Notice the phrase "sometimes morally right" in the passage. If we say "Kelly is 5 years old and she eats chocolate," we can also say "some children (at least one in this case) eat chocolate." The word "some" allows us to make this statement. "All" children would be too broad a generalization.
(C) is wrong. This presumption is never made in the argument.
(D) is incorrect. The argument never takes for granted that there is no obligation to follow laws.
(E) is not right either, because the passage clearly states that the person is "known" to be falsely accused.
I guess I'm confused about the reasoning here: A) would seem to be correct in that the author uses the assumed moral righteousness of a single example (it's morally right to hide a family member if they were falsely accused) to justify a broad generalization related to that example (few would therefore deny that it's sometimes morally right to commit obstruction of justice).
On top that that, B) seems problematic because it's not apparent to me that even if the speaker HAD considered "other moral principles" that would make obstruction NOT morally right generally, that they would affect the presumed moral righteousness of hiding a family member in one particular instance (if they were falsely accused).
Even if you negate B) (the speaker considers the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm), that doesn't destroy the argument that it's "sometimes" (in this case, the single instance where your family member has been falsely accused, and then even within that narrow bit of spectrum outside of where it's "widely recognized" that some "other moral principle" would make it otherwise) okay to commit obstruction.
basically, it seems to me like B) still gives you too much wiggle room to accept the conclusion that even under one single circumstance it might be "widely accepted" that it's morally right to commit obstruction. A) just on its face seems to be the bigger flaw - basing a broad generalization justifying obstruction on one single instance where obstruction is okay.
I'm obviously wrong but I would like to hear why.