Hypothethical answer choice from PT 60, Section 1, LR, #18 Forum

[secretad]

This is the principle question from the bus driver problem.

If answer choice (D) had said, "A company that employs bus drivers should reprimand those drivers only when they become involved in collisions in which they were not abiding by all traffic regulations."

Would that be correct? I feel like that would have been a correct justify answer choice in not reprimanding him for the accident because it is:

Should reprimand ---> ~Abiding all traffic regulations

Abiding all traffic regulations ---> Should not reprimand

[secretad]

Also, if the answer choice said this...what would you think of it. Had this been an answer choice in this problem.

I do not mean to be ridiculous, it just shows what I am struggling with on principle questions.

A company that employs bus drivers should reprimand those drivers only when they cheer for the Los Angeles Lakers.

Would that justify the reasoning in this argument. With what is given as evidence, would this help?

You would have:

Should reprimand ---> Cheer LAL

~ Cheer LAL ---> Should not reprimand

[secretad]

Bump.

The part that confuses me with these "Should do (A) only when (B)

We are given (C) in the stimulus. There is no confirmation of whether B occurred or did not occur.

Can we conclude that it is "should not do (A)" when we have this situation?

Stimulus: (C)
Conclusion: Should not do (A)

Answer choices:

A) Should not do (A) ---> (C) That cannot be correct because we do not know if we have that sufficient condition

B) Should do (A) only when (B)

Contrapositive of that, of course, is:

~B ---> Should not do (A)

I suppose we cannot conclude should not (A) in this problem because we do not know if we B or do not have B? Is this correct?

It's just tempting to see something where you have a conclusion of "should not do X" and you have answer choices to justify this conclusion and you see something like that above.

You have (C) statement in the stimulus and you look at an answer choice that says "~B ---> Should not do X"

And (C) is obviously not (B), so can you conclude that?

[SanDiegoJake]

Hey secretad - I am confused by your question - all those a's, b's and c's just don't make sense to me.

In a principle question, you want to just think of the principle as a wide-scoped umbrella-type law/principle. In this case, your hypothetical answer would've been alright.

For me, the question analysis went something like this:
Answer A: Eliminated. Issue of "responsibility" for accident is not clearly stated in the stimulus.
Answer B: Elimainted. Issue of "fault" is not clearly stated in the stimulus.
Answer C: Eliminated. It's not valid to say that just because: Abide by traffic --> no reprimand, that ~abide by traffic --> yes reprimand
Answer D: Nope. Stimulus goes against this, as bus driver is arguing that he should not be reprimanded even though he may have been able to avoid accident.
Answer E: Yes. If this answer choice is the umbrella-like principle/law that governs reality, then the bus driver is completely justified.

[secretad]

What about this hypothetical answer choice...

A company that employs bus drivers should reprimand those drivers only when they cheer for the Los Angeles Lakers.

[secretad]

A company that employs bus drivers should reprimand those drivers only when they stomp on the ground after an accident.

It is driving me nuts because of this dichotomy...

#1 If we are to exclusively look at the facts of the stimulus, we can conclude that based on his actions in the stimulus, that he should not be reprimanded.

#2 However, if we are to consider all outside knowledge to which we are not certain as to what occurred, then we could not conclude that he should not be reprimanded because we do not know if he did not stomp on the ground after the accident.

Which way am I to view this? #1 or #2?

[secretad]

Bump for which avenue to take on principle questions, #1 or #2.

[SanDiegoJake]

#2 - We don't know what is not told to us.