QUESTION TEXT: Campaign manager: In campaign speeches, our candidate…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle
CONCLUSION: It is justifiable to omit the bad effects of endorsed policies if you are trying to enact a positive agenda.
REASONING: Hiding bad effects improves the chances for our candidate to get elected, which in turn allows us to enact positive change.
ANALYSIS: The argument is basically saying that misinforming the public is justifiable if you are doing so in order to enact a positive agenda. The correct principle will follow a similar form of something bad being justified by something good.
___________
- CORRECT. This is exactly what we are looking for. If this is true, then it helps justify an ethically questionable act (misleading voters) by their good consequence (enacting positive agenda)
- This answer would condemn, rather than justify, doing something bad for the sake of something good.
- We are trying to justify bad acts by appealing to good consequences. This statement says that good consequences can never be justified, which doesn’t help us.
- Being trusted is irrelevant. We are looking for a principle that helps us justify misconduct.
- We are trying to justify misinforming voters by failing to report negative effects. This statement does the opposite by emphasizing the importance of NOT misinforming voters.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply