PrepTest 130

Incorrect. Aristotle's principle is general, so accepting it would mean accepting it applies widely. Otis applies it to a specific case in reaching his conclusion, so he accepts it. Tyra says she accepts it. This answer is therefore a point of agreement.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
O: Justice is treating relevantly similar cases the same, so a dentist making an after-hours appointment for a friend is doing something wrong.

T: That's an acceptable definition of justice, but friends are people you make exceptions for, so it's not wrong to make that appointment.

Answer Anticipation:
There's actually quite a bit of overlap between Otis and Tyra's statements here! They both talk about Aristotle's principle of justice, and they both seem to accept it as a good definition. And then they both weigh in on a specific situation—a dentist makes an exception and scheduling an after-hours appointment for a friend. Otis believes it's unjust, whereas Tyra believes it's just.

So the two do disagree over the conclusion here—whether this action is just. But we should also figure out where their arguments diverge allowing those different conclusions to be drawn.

They both start by accepting Aristotle's principle of justice, so that's not a point of disagreement. It must therefore be somewhere in the application of that principle where they differ.

The principle states that relevantly similar cases should be treated similarly. Otis believes, therefore, that the dentist is treating a relevantly similar case differently and is therefore unjust. Tyra, in concluding that this behavior is not unjust, must believe that they're not relevantly similar.

Let's find an answer reflecting this different belief or the conclusion that it leads to.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the different premise that leads the two speakers to different conclusions. The principle underlying each argument is that relevantly similar cases should be treated similarly. In a specific case, Otis believes a dentist is violating this rule by treating two cases differently, while Tyra believes that a dentist isn't violating this rule with the different treatment. Therefore, Otis must believe the rule applies and the cases of friends and others are relevantly similar, whereas Tyra must believe that the rule doesn't apply because the cases aren't.

Key Takeaway:
In Point at Issue questions, when the speakers disagree on the conclusion, the correct answer frequently doesn't address that conclusion (though it also frequently does). In this case, the correct answer will reflect what allowed those different conclusions to be drawn—the two must disagree on the facts or implication of those facts in order to end up at different judgments. When you see two speakers disagree on a conclusion, also spend time to figure out the disagreement that led them to different places.

Incorrect. This answer implies that acting justly is impossible, but neither speaker says anything nearly as strong as that. They both speak to just a single case.

Incorrect. Tyra disagrees with this answer, believing that it's not unjust to make this exception just for friends. Otis believes that dentists should treat friends and strangers similarly as far as after-hours appointments are concerned, but that doesn't mean he believes that they should make after-hours appointments for everyone. Not making those appointments for everyone would be acceptable as well. As such, this answer isn't something we can commit Otis to having an opinion on, so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. Neither speaker addresses what judgment Aristotle would make in this case—they just speak to what judgment they make based on his principle. As such, this answer is out of scope of both speakers.