Sorry to flood you with questions, but can you also explain PT 17 section 3 #23? What makes A wrong? I can't seem to figure out the difference between A and C. Thanks!
Alright, here's the situation:
Arnold had a ticket for a flight.
Arnold was bumped because the flight was overbooked.
Arnold flew on a flight 2 hours later and missed a meeting.
Arnold's original flight was canceled.
Arnold thinks the airline owes him compensation.
Jamie thinks the airline doesn't owe him compensation (because he would have missed his meeting even if he didn't get bumped).
I'm trying to justify Jamie's position that he isn't owed compensation. To do that, I need to adopt a principle that connects her premise (he would have missed the meeting even if he didn't get bumped) to her conclusion (the airline doesn't owe him compensation).
That's what C does. C tells me that the airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger ONLY IF the passenger wouldn't have needed to take a later flight if the original wasn't overbooked. In other words, American only has to give me a voucher if I'm bumped if I would have been on time had I not been bumped. Here, Arnold would have been late either way - bumped or cancelled, he wasn't getting on that first flight.
A says that JetBlue is morally obligated to give Arnold some cash if the only reason Arnold is on that later flight is because the first was overbooked. Well, the reason Arnold had to take the later flight wasn't only because it was overbooked - he would have had to take a later flight even if that flight wasn't overbooked. So A doesn't apply to my situation, and it can't be right.
For these justify questions, you need something very specific to the situation at hand (generally - there are a few exceptions). You're also simply looking for something that says, "If premise, then conclusion." C does that here, and applies to my situation at hand; A doesn't apply to my situation at hand, so it can't justify my conclusion.