PrepTest 115

Incorrect. Marie assumes a principle, she doesn't explicitly state one. Her principle is that if you don't trick, threaten, or physically force someone into giving you something—even if it's the wrong thing—then it's not morally wrong to keep it. However, in bringing up a situation that fits that description but doesn't lead to a conclusion of it being morally fine to keep the item, Julia questions that principle.

Incorrect. Julia believes that Marie's conclusion is [n]onsense, so her argument doesn't provide reasons to accept it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
M: Situation - A cashier gave me change for a $20, but I gave him a $10. I didn't do anything wrong to get the money, so it wasn't morally wrong to keep it.

J: If you accidentally hand me your coat instead of mine, I didn't do anything wrong to get it, but I'm not morally right to keep it.

Answer Anticipation:
Julia's argument starts by calling Marie's [n]onsense, so we need to figure out how she goes about rebutting Marie's argument.

And Julia uses a common method of reasoning—she uses a similar situation to show that a similar conclusion wouldn't be justified there based on Marie's reasoning, thus suggesting that the conclusion shouldn't be valid in Marie's situation. Let's find an answer talking about a comparable or analogous situation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects our anticipation and Julia's argument. Marie concludes that it wouldn't be morally wrong to keep additional money when a cashier accidentally gives you the wrong change. Julia shows that in a similar situation—accidentally being given the wrong coat—it would be morally wrong to keep it. Since this answer describes how Julia's argument responds to Marie's, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
A common method of reasoning is to use the opponent's logic in a situation to lead to an unacceptable conclusion. The answer choice here reflects what answer choices generally sound like when that method of reasoning is present!

Incorrect. Julia doesn't bring up a moral problem she faces—she brings up a hypothetical, parallel situation to highlight a problem with the principle underlying Marie's argument.

Incorrect. Julia takes issue with Marie's principle and suggests that the situation she describes should lead to the opposite conclusion, which may be considered a radically different principle. However, Julia absolutely renders judgment on Marie's situation in implying through the parallel situation that she is "not morally entitled" to keep the money.