Top Law Schools

I cannot remember where the question can be found or if it is even the case that it has been done, but I am fairly sure it has.

Let us say that there is a principle question and you are able to eliminate all of the answer choices but two.

Let us say the stimulus involves a police officer and using deadly force.

"The police officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon. That police officer was rightfully punished."

What principle would help to justify the officer's actions?

Let us say that you eliminate all but two answers and these are the ones you are left with during the test.

A) An officer should be punished only if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.

B) An officer should be punished if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.


I understand the difference of sufficient and necessary conditions. My instinct is to pick B as we have the sufficient condition and can thus proceed with the necessary condition.

Whereas in (A) we do not have the sufficient condition of a prescriptive sense of what should happen to the officer.

Is this correct thinking?

Also, can you envision a case where a principle would be chosen because of a reverse situation?

Thanks.

Yep, you're spot on.

The reverse of the situation would be:

The officer shot a person who clearly had a weapon. The officer was rightfully not punished.

Principle:

An officer should be punished only if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.

0LNewbie wrote:
The officer shot a person who clearly had a weapon. The officer was rightfully not punished.

Principle:

An officer should be punished only if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.

Wouldnt this one be: an officer should not be punished if he/she shoots someone clearing possessing a weapon.

Both principles are valid. The first one is a principle with the only if construction and yours is a simple if construction.