LR Question 12 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Suppose I have promised to keep a confidence and someone asks…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It’s impossible to have to keep all promises and also to have to answer every question honestly.
REASONING: It’s possible for the following to happen:
- For you to be sworn to silence, and
- Someone asks you a question that, if answered truthfully, would require you to break that oath of silence.
ANALYSIS: This is a solid argument. The two obligations have an inherent contradiction, and so we can’t be obliged to keep all vows and answer all questions honestly.
To mirror this, you need to look for a situation where there’s a definite contradiction between two obligations.
___________
- CORRECT. This matches. It’s impossible to say whatever you want and and to be civil.
You might have thought you could have the right to free expression, but simply not exercise it. But that doesn’t quite match the answer. “Unemcumbered” means having no obstacle to. So, if you want to say something but refrain from doing so out of civility, you are “encumbered” by civility. An unencumbered right is a stronger form than simply having a right. - Unlike the stimulus, this is a bad argument. The politicians still have a choice. They could opt not to be popular, and therefore not be politicians.
In any case, this is also wrong because it doesn’t show a contradiction between two ideas. Instead it merely tries to show that dishonesty is necessary. - This doesn’t show a contradiction between two ideas. Instead, it merely shows there are risks to each of two options.
- This is a bad argument. It plays on two different meanings of the word “will force”. In the second sentence, it’s implied that will force means “If brought before a court, the court will force a corporation to pay debts”.
This answer does not mean that courts run around forcing debt obligations to be paid in every instance. Courts only look at cases brought before them. So there’s a third option: the creditors might not have brought the case to court. - This is a good argument. But it doesn’t show a contradiction between two ideas. This might have been correct had it said “it’s impossible to both extend our business hours and keep labor costs the same”.
I don’t think that would have done it, but it would have been closer to being right.
More Resources for Parallel Reasoning Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Parallel Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers parallel reasoning questions.
To me, it seems like the “right” to say whatever you want doesn’t put you in a catch 22 like the stimulus does. Just cause you have the right doesn’t mean you have to do it. If (A) said “you have an obligation to say what is on your mind,” then the answer would be more analogous to to the stimulus.
On the other hand, with C, you do have a catch 22. Regardless of which path the hero takes, there’s a potential positive and negative outcome, perhaps both. Same as the stimulus.
Any further explanation would be much appreciated.
I think your confusion comes from slightly misinterpreting the structure of the stimulus.
The stimulus isn’t actually presenting a “catch-22” or no-win situation. It’s not saying “Whatever I do, something bad happens.” Instead, it argues that two obligations can’t both hold because they are logically incompatible or contradictory.
The reasoning is: if I answer truthfully, I break the promise; I can’t both keep and break the same promise, so I can’t be obliged both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises. The conclusion is about the incompatibility of two absolute principles.
The same happens for A. It says we supposedly have an unencumbered (absolute) right to say whatever we want, and we also have a duty to be civil. But civility requires that we don’t always say whatever we want. Therefore, both claims cannot always be true at the same time. This is the same as the stimulus: two absolute principles are asserted, and then it is shown that they conflict in at least one case, so they cannot be both universally valid.
You’re correct that a right doesn’t mean you must exercise it in real life. But the argument isn’t about whether someone is forced to exercise the right. It’s about whether they have an absolute right to say whatever they want. If civility places limits on what one may say, then the right is not truly unencumbered. That contradiction mirrors the one in the stimulus between answering all questions truthfully and keeping all promises.
C is more of a catch-22. If we do one thing, we risk criticism but if we do the other, we also risk criticism (damned if you do and damned if you don’t). That’s a no-win situation based on consequences, but doesn’t show any contradiction between two options. The stimulus doesn’t say every possible action leads to a bad outcome. It says that two universal obligations conflict and therefore cannot both stand.
So A matches the stimulus because both arguments show that two broad normative claims are logically incompatible/contradictory. C does not match because it describes a practical dilemma, but not a conflict between universal principles.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.