Q9 - The Jacksons regularly receive

[tonysun]

Is the "although..." an intermediate conclusion (which also means that it serves as a premise to the "it would be laudable..." conclusion?

In the bigger picture, is it wise to be flexible to identifying statements after "Thus, although..." as possibly an intermediate conclusion, which means that it also needs to be justified by a principle? Thanks!

[WesleyC316]

On the third review, I'm still having issues with this question. The thing that bothers me is the adverbial clause in the conclusion. To me, the "although it would not be wrong..." part is just something that the author is conceding, so the actual conclusion is just the "it would be laudable..." part. So I thought we only need to justify "helpful→laudable". I'm not quite seeing the condition between "not lead Sarah to believe" and "not wrong to do so", just like other comments pointed out.

[Heart Shaped Box]

The Jacksons regularly get calls from folks trying to reach Sara. Sara asked the Jacksons to pass on her correct number to such callers. The argument concludes that it would be not wrong for the Jacksons to NOT do that (and only say "sorry, wrong number") and it would be laudable for them to do so. Why? For the first part, we are told that the Jacksons did not tell Sara they would inform callers of her correct number. For the second part, we are told that it would be helpful to Sara and pretty easy to do.

But, we really don't know what the argument uses as the rules (principles) for what is wrong and what is laudable. The gap is between those facts and the moral rulings. Analogously, I could say "Jim is able to lend Nora money, so he should," and it's clear that I'm assuming that Jim's ability to lend Nora money makes it a moral imperative that he do. The correct answer should provide the connection between the facts the conclusion:

Facts:
- it would be helpful to Sara for the Jacksons to give out her number.
- it's easy for them to do it
- the Jacksons did not say they would do it.

Conclusions:
1. It's not wrong for the Jacksons NOT to give out Sara's number.
2. It would be laudable if they did.

(A) does this. It states that something is laudable if it helps someone. That works, since the Jacksons would help Sara by passing her number to the callers mentioned above. Also, this answer deals with the first part of the conclusion - it is not wrong -- by explaining that not doing something helpful is only wrong if you told the person that act would help that you would do it.

(B) is tempting, however we don't learn that passing out Sara's number is not wrong, we learn that it's not wrong for them NOT do it. Furthermore, it bases one part of the conclusion on another. It would be as if I concluded from the facts that Greg was supposed to be here 10 minutes ago and that his blood alcohol level is at 1.2, that "Gregg is a drunk and he is irresponsible." If my intention was to say that his being a drunk shows he's irresponsible, then I would have used the word "thus", but instead I'm simply stating two conclusions that are based on the given facts.

(C) has a similar problem to (B). We do not learn that it would be not wrong for them to give out her number. We need an answer that explains why it's not wrong for the Jacksons NOT to give out her number.

(D) is too extreme. It's only laudable under those conditions? Furthermore, it's not difficult for the Jacksons to give out her number, so this answer is missing the point (out of scope).

(E) is tempting as it mentions a number of the facts. However, again, it's not necessary that something is laudable only if the conditions mentioned are in effect. We need an answer that uses the facts as sufficient conditions to reach the conclusion. (E) puts laudable as sufficient, and being not wrong to not do as the necessary. We don't learn what will definitely be laudable, only what a laudable action will definitely look like. Wit the latter, it's still possible to have those characteristics and not be laudable. Also, like (B), this bases one part of the conclusion on the other. To go back to Gregg, this would be like saying "one is late only if that person is drunk."

Tell me whether that helps or if you have further questions.


#officialexplanation

Good explaination but I think Noah might have unintentionally reversed the logic at the end of the explanation for A. The stimulus gives us: not tell —> not wrong, wrong —> tell (Wong only if tell). He wrote: not helping is “only” wrong “if” tell the person, which is tell —> wrong. It could be just a typo mistranslated what he really intended to say, thought would just point it out.

[LilyY418]

Good explaination but I think Noah might have unintentionally reversed the logic at the end of the explanation for A.
The stimulus gives us: not tell —> not wrong, wrong —> tell (Wong only if tell).
He wrote: not helping is “only” wrong “if” tell the person, which is tell —> wrong. It could be just a typo mistranslated what he really intended to say, thought would just point it out.

I realize this is old but i think you have it backwards.

If we say: "not helping is only wrong if you tell the person"

This has the same meaning as: "If you don't tell the person you're going to help them, it's not wrong to not help them" (not tell --> not wrong)
So the logic in Noah's explanation is just fine.

(A) isn't supposed to be a reiteration of what's in the stimulus. It's the missing piece that connects the facts we're given to the conclusion.

From the stimulus we know: J didn't tell S they'd pass along her info (not tell S)

From that the author concludes: not tell Callers --> not wrong

So why isn't it wrong for them not to pass along her info? Because they never said they would!

The missing piece to connect the conclusion with the fact is: not tell S --> not wrong (which is what A says)

I think the confusion might be in your use of "not tell" for both "not tell S" and "not tell callers".
It would be simpler to look at "Not tell callers" as "not help"