Deck 5: Analyzing Arg From Principle

Question 1

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) You ought to minimize the amount of pollution you generate.
2) . . .
So, you ought to recycle your bottles and cans.

A) Recycling your bottles and cans helps minimize the amount of pollution you generate.
B) Bottles and cans are pollution.
C) You ought to do whatever you can to help the environment.
D) You ought to recycle your bottles and cans.

Answer 1

Recycling your bottles and cans helps minimize the amount of pollution you generate.

Question 2

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) Lying is always wrong.
2) )..
So, intentionally misrepresenting your finances on your tax forms is wrong.

A) Misrepresenting your finances on your tax forms is wrong.
B) Misrepresenting your finances on your tax forms is unfair to people who honestly report their finances.
C) Everyone has a duty to complete their tax forms honestly.
D) Misrepresenting your finances on your tax forms is a form of lying.

Answer 2

Misrepresenting your finances on your tax forms is a form of lying.

Question 3

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) An action is racist only if it is based upon harmful and false stereotypes about people of a particular race.
2) At least some white men who prefer to date Asian women are not acting based upon harmful and false stereotypes about people of a particular race.
Therefore, ...

A) At least some white men who prefer to date Asian women are racists.
B) Everyone, including white men, should not have racial preferences in dating.
C) At least some white men who prefer to date Asian women are not acting racist.
D) Some white men are racist.

Answer 3

At least some white men who prefer to date Asian women are not acting racist.

Question 4

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) )..
2) Cheating on an exam gives a student an unfair advantage over others in the job market.
So, it's wrong for a student to cheat on an exam.

A) It is wrong for a student to get unfair advantages over others in the job market.
B) It is wrong for students to cheat on exams.
C) Some students study hard for exams so they can eventually find a good job.
D) It is very difficult for students to find good jobs in the job market.

Question 5

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) A practice should be illegal if it encourages desperate people to do potentially harmful or degrading things
2) )..
So, prostitution should be illegal.

A) Prostitution is the oldest profession, and will be forever with us.
B) It doesn't make sense that prostitution is currently legal.
C) Potentially harmful professions should be illegal.
D) Prostitution is a practice that encourages desperate people to do potentially harmful or degrading things.

Question 6

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) It's wrong to do things that make serious problems worse.
2) )..
So, driving a gas-guzzling car is wrong.

A) It's wrong to drive fuel-inefficient cars.
B) Driving a gas-guzzling car makes a serious problem worse.
C) It's wrong to produce unnecessary greenhouse gasses.
D) Many people choose to drive gas-guzzling cars.

Question 7

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) A person's personal preferences are morally objectionable if those preferences place a disproportionate psychological burden on a sub-group of people.
2) The personal preference of some white men to date or marry Asian women places a disproportionate psychological burden on Asian and Asian-American women.
Therefore, ....

A) It's wrong to place a disproportionate psychological burden on Asian and Asian- American women.
B) Some white men prefer to date only Asian women.
C) The personal preference of some white men to date or marry Asian women is morally objectionable.
D) Some white men's preference to date Asian women oppresses those women.

Question 8

Supply the missing premise or conclusion to make a properly structured Argument from Principle.
1) )..
2) Illegally downloading movies doesn't take anything physical from anyone else. Thus, illegally downloading movies is not wrong.

A) You shouldn't take things from others without their permission.
B) If you take something physical from someone else, that's wrong.
C) Digital copies of movies aren't physical things, so taking them isn't wrong.
D) Taking something from someone is wrong only if it takes something physical

Question 9

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
There's nothing wrong with using other people's property as long as your use doesn't cause them any unhappiness. So, using your neighbor's wi-fi internet without their permission isn't wrong, because it doesn't cause them any unhappiness.

A) 1) Using other people's property without their permission is wrong.
2) Your neighbor's wi-fi is their property.
Therefore, using your neighbor's wi-fi is wrong.
B) 1) Using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission is not morally wrong.
2) Using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission doesn't cause them any unhappiness.
Therefore, using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission is not morally wrong.
C) 1) There's nothing wrong with using other people's property as long as your use doesn't cause them any unhappiness.
2) Using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission causes them unhappiness. Therefore, using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission is morally wrong.
D) 1) There's nothing wrong with using other people's property as long as your use doesn't cause them any unhappiness. 2) Using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission doesn't cause them any unhappiness.
Therefore, using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission is not morally wrong.

Question 10

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Suicide is always wrong, because it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being, and suicide does that.

A) 1) It is always wrong to commit suicide.
2) Suicide always kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, suicide is always wrong.
B) 1) Suicide is always wrong.
2) Suicide kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being.
C) 1) People who commit suicide are innocent human beings.
2) Suicide kills innocent human beings.
Ii) Therefore, suicide is always wrong.
D) 1) It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being.
2) Suicide always kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, suicide is always wrong.

Question 11

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
It's always wrong to end an innocent human life. So, abortion is always wrong, since it always ends an innocent human life.

A) 1) It is always wrong to end an innocent human life.
2) Abortion ends an innocent human life. Therefore, abortion is always wrong.
B) 1) Abortion is always wrong.
2) Abortion ends the life of an innocent human being.
Therefore, it is always wrong to end the life of an innocent human being.
C) 1) It is always wrong to have an abortion.
2) Abortion always kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is always wrong.
D) 1) Fetuses are innocent human beings.
2) Abortion kills innocent human beings.
Therefore, abortion is always wrong.

Question 12

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Eating meat is morally permissible. After all, other animals do it.

A) 1) Things other animals do are morally permissible.
2) Other animals eat meat.
Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.
B) 1) Eating meat is morally permissible.
2)Other animals eat meat. Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.
C) 1) Other animals eat meat.
2) Meat-eaters need meat to be healthy.
Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible.
D) 1) Eating meat is morally permissible.
2) It is morally permissible for animals to eat meat.
Therefore, animals eat meat.

Question 13

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
It's wrong for doctors to use placebos on patients, because it is always wrong for a healthcare practitioner to deceive a patient.

A) 1) Everyone should always tell the truth.
2) Using placebos is a form of lying. Therefore, doctors who use placebos are liars.
B) 1) It is wrong for doctors to deceive patients.
2) Using placebos deceives patients.
Therefore, it is wrong for doctors to deceive patients.
C) 1) It is wrong for doctors to prescribe placebos.
2) Using placebos deceives patients.
Therefore, it is wrong for doctors to deceive patients.
D) 1) It is wrong for doctors to deceive patients.
2)Using placebos deceives patients.
Therefore, it is wrong for doctors to use placebos on patients.

Question 14

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Look inside the mouth of a human being. You'll find canine teeth and incisors. These teeth are adapted for eating flesh, not vegetables. It isn't just our teeth-the general biological evidence is overwhelming: the human body is by nature able to eat meat. Look to the earliest cave paintings: they show humans hunting animals. It isn't just the cave paintings
-the general archaeological evidence is also overwhelming: from our earliest days on Earth, human beings have eaten meat. In short, the scientific evidence from multiple disciplines proves that eating meat is natural for human beings. And surely behaviors that are natural for human beings are morally permissible for human beings--it would be absurd to claim otherwise. Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.

A) 1) Eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.
2) Eating meat is natural for human beings.
Therefore, behaviors that are natural for human beings are morally permissible.
B) 1) Cave paintings show humans hunting animals for meat.
2) Human teeth are adapted for eating meat.
Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.
C) 1) Behaviors that are natural for human beings are morally permissible for human beings.
2) Eating meat is natural for human beings.
Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.
D) 1) Cave paintings show humans hunting animals for meat.
2) Human teeth are adapted for eating meat. Therefore, eating meat is natural for human beings.

Question 15

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
A fetus potentially has a right to life. (If allowed to develop, it will become a child, and children definitely have a right to life.) If someone potentially has a right, then we should treat them as though they already do have that right. For this reason, we should treat fetuses as if they have the same right to life that children have.

A) 1) Children have a right to life.
2) Fetuses have a right to life.
Therefore, we should treat fetuses the same way we treat children.
B) 1) If someone potentially has a right, then we should treat them as though they already do have that right.
2)A fetus potentially has a right to life.
Therefore, we should treat fetuses as if they already have a right to life.
C) 1) If we should treat something as if it has a right to life, then it actually does have a right to life.
2)We should treat fetuses as if they have a right to life.
Therefore, fetuses have a right to life.
D) 1) A fetus will eventually turn into a child.
2) A child has a right life.
Therefore, we should treat fetuses as if they already have a right to life.

Question 16

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Killing is only wrong when the thing killed wants not to be killed. (Bacteria, for example, have no desire to live, which is why it's perfectly fine to kill them.) First- trimester fetuses have no desires at all, so they do not have the desire not to be killed. That is why first-trimester abortion is not morally wrong.

A) 1) Killing is only wrong when the thing killed wants not to be killed.
2) First-trimester abortion kills a fetus, which does not want not to be killed. So, First-trimester abortion is not morally wrong.
So,
B) 1) First-trimester abortion is not morally wrong.
2) A fetus has no desires at all.
So, a first trimester abortion is not wrong, because a fetus does not have a desire not to be killed.
C) 1) Bacteria do not have a desire to live.
2) Fetuses do not have a desire to live.
So, first-trimester abortion is not morally wrong.
D) 1) A first-trimester abortion is not morally wrong.
2) Killing is only wrong when the thing killed wants not to be killed. So, first-trimester fetuses do not have the desire not to be killed.

Question 17

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
A person is morally required to aid others only if doing so doesn't require using their own hard-earned money. So, we're not obligated to donate 1% of our income to effective poverty relief agencies, because doing so would require using our own hard- earned money.

A) 1) A person is morally required to aid others only if doing so doesn't require using their own hard-earned money.
2) Donating 1% of our income to effective poverty relief agencies would require using our own hard-earned money.
So, we're not morally required to donate 1% of our income to effective poverty relief agencies.
So,
B) 1) We're not obligated to donate 1% of our income to effective poverty relief agencies, because doing so would require using our own hard-earned money.
2) We'd have to use our money to help others.
So, people don't want to use their money to help others.
C) 1) We're not obligated to donate 1% of our income to effective poverty relief agencies.
2)Donating 1% of our income to effective poverty relief agencies would require using our hard-earned money.
So, a person is morally required to aid others only if doing so doesn't require using their own hard-earned money.
D) 1) A person is morally required to aid others only if doing so doesn't require using their own hard-earned money.
2) People don't want to use their hard earned money on others. So, we're not obligated to donate to help anyone else.

Question 18

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
It's always wrong to do things that cause harm, however indirect, to other people. Driving a gas-guzzling car (a car that gets far lower gas mileage than the average car) harms other people by contributing to global warming. So, it's wrong to drive a gas- guzzling car.

A) 1) It's always wrong to do things that cause harm, however indirect, to other people.
2) Driving a gas-guzzling car harms other people. So, it's wrong to drive a gas-guzzling car.
B) 1) Driving a gas-guzzling car is wrong.
2) It harms other people by contributing to global warming.
So, it's wrong to drive a gas-guzzling car, because it harms other people.
C) 1) It's always wrong to do things that cause harm, however indirect, to other people.
2) Driving a gas-guzzling car contributes to global warming. So, you shouldn't drive a gas-guzzling car.
D) 1) Driving a gas-guzzling car contributes to global warming.
2) Global warming harms other people. So, it's wrong to drive a gas-guzzling car.

Question 19

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
There's nothing wrong with driving a gas-guzzling car just for fun-- tons of people do it.

A) 1) Lots of people drive a gas-guzzling car just for fun.
2) Driving a gas-guzzling car doesn't harm anyone.
So, there's nothing wrong with driving a gas-guzzling car just for fun.
B) 1) Driving a gas-guzzling car just for fun is not wrong.
2) Lots of people drive a gas-guzzling car just for fun.
So, there's nothing wrong with driving a gas-guzzling car just for fun.
C) 1) Lots of people drive a gas-guzzling car.
2) Driving a gas-guzzling car for fun is not wrong.
So, tons of people drive a gas-guzzling car, so it's not wrong.
D)
1) If lots of other people do something, then it's not wrong to do it.
2) Lots of other people drive a gas-guzzling car just for fun. So, it's not wrong to drive a gas-guzzling car just for fun.

Question 20

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Obviously, no one deserves blame for doing something that's perfectly legal. It therefore follows that we're totally misguided if we blame people for driving gas- guzzling cars.

A) 1) No one deserves blame for doing something that's perfectly legal.
2) Driving gas-guzzling cars is perfectly legal.
So, no one deserves blame for driving a gas-guzzling car.
B) 1) No one deserves blame for driving a gas-guzzling car.
2) Driving a gas-guzzling car is perfectly legal.
So, we're totally misguided if we blame people for driving gas-guzzling cars.
C) 1)No one deserves blame for doing something that's perfectly legal.
2)We're totally misguided if we blame people for driving gas-guzzling cars. So, driving gas-guzzling cars is perfectly legal.
D) 1) Driving gas-guzzling cars is perfectly legal.
2) We're totally misguided if we blame people for driving gas-guzzling cars. So, no one deserves blame for doing something that's perfectly legal.

Question 21

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Why do some people believe it is wrong to eat animals?
It isn't! Non-human animals eat each other all the time!

A) 1) It isn't wrong to eat animals.
2) Non-human animals eat each other all the time.
So, Why do some people believe it is wrong to eat animals?
B) 1) Why do some people believe it is wrong to eat animals?
2)Other animals eat animals.
So, people should be able to eat animals.
C) 1) People believe it is wrong to eat animals.
2)But, animals eat each other all the time. So, it's not wrong for people to eat animals.
D) 1) If non-human animals do something, it's not wrong for people to do it.
2) Non-human animals eat animals.
So, it's not wrong for people to eat animals.

Question 22

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
I can't believe you tattled on Heather for cheating on the chemistry midterm. That was so wrong of you to do that to her. It's not like she killed someone.

A) 1) It's wrong to tell on someone unless they've killed someone.
2) Heather didn't kill anyone.
So, it was wrong to tell on Heather.
B) 1) I can't believe you tattled on Heather for cheating.
2) Heather didn't kill anyone.
So, it was wrong of you to tell on Heather.
C) 1) It was wrong of you to tell on Heather for cheating on the chemistry midterm.
2)It's not like Heather killed someone. So, you shouldn't have tattled on her.
D) 1) I can't believe you tattled on Heather for cheating on the chemistry midterm.
2) That was so wrong of you. So, Heather didn't kill anyone.

Question 23

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
It was completely wrong of your chemistry professor to fail you just because you didn't turn in any of the work. She knows you need that class to graduate.

A) 1) It was completely wrong of your chemistry professor to fail you.
2) You needed that class to graduate.
So, your chemistry professor shouldn't have failed you just because you didn't turn in any of the work.
B) 1) You need your chemistry class to graduate.
2) Your chemistry professor knows this. So, she shouldn't fail you.
C) 1) Your chemistry professor knows you needed her class to graduate.
2) If she fails you, you won't graduate.
So, it was wrong for your chemistry professor to fail you.
D) 1) If a student needs a class to graduate, it's wrong for a professor to fail them.
2) You needed your chemistry class to graduate.
So, it was wrong of your chemistry professor to fail you.

Question 24

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Does the pornography industry wrongfully exploit women, or is a job in porn just another job like any other?
I think it is clear that the pornography industry wrongfully exploits women. Many of the women who work in the industry would leave it if they had good alternatives for well-paid work. That means the pornography industry makes money off of people doing things they wouldn't otherwise do if they had other options. Any industry that does that is a wrongfully exploitative industry.

A) 1) The pornography industry is wrongfully exploitative.
2) Many of the women who work in the industry would leave it if they had good alternatives for paid work.
So, Any industry that makes money off of people doing things they otherwise wouldn't do is wrongfully exploitative.
B) 1) An industry is wrongfully exploitative if it makes money off of people doing things they wouldn't otherwise do if they had other options.
2)The pornography industry makes money off of people doing things they wouldn't otherwise do if they had other options.
So, the pornography industry is wrongfully exploitative.
C) 1) Many of the women who work in the pornography industry would leave if they had good alternatives for well-paid work.
2)The pornography industry makes money off of people doing things they wouldn't otherwise do if they had other options.
So, the pornography industry is wrongfully exploitative.
D)
1) Any industry that makes money off of people doing things they wouldn't otherwise do if they had other options is wrongfully exploitative.
2) Many of the women who work in the pornography industry would leave if they had good alternatives for well-paid work.
So, the pornography industry makes money off of people doing things they wouldn't otherwise do.

Question 25

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is a response to racial disparities in policing. BLM protesters hope to raise awareness about, among other things, the inordinate violence African Americans and other people of color suffer in the United States at the hands of the police. BLM uses various actions to try to achieve their goals, including organized marches and protests. Sometimes, however, they're met with counter- protesters. In some encounters, these (mostly White) counter-protesters have shouted "All lives matter!" in response to BLM's chant of "Black lives matter." The counter- protestors' aim seems to be to counter what they see as an unfair focus on one group's needs.
The "All lives matter!" chant has itself become controversial, with some people claiming that it is racist for white people to shout "All lives matter!" at a BLM demonstration.
Regardless of the merits of the counter-protesters' views, chanting "All lives matter" is not racist. After all, an action is racist only if it is based upon feelings of hatred for a racial group, and chanting "All lives matter" doesn't express hatred for anyone.

A) 1) An action is racist only if it is based upon feelings of hatred for a racial group.
2) Chanting "All Lives Matter" at a BLM rally doesn't express hatred for anyone. So, chanting "All Lives Matter" at a BLM rally is not racist.
B) 1) In some encounters, (mostly White) counter-protesters have shouted "All Lives Matter."
2) Chanting "All Lives Matter" doesn't express hatred for anyone. So, chanting "All Lives Matter" is not racist.
C) 1)The BLM movement is a response to racial disparities in policing.
2) The "All Lives Matter" chant is controversial, but it doesn't express hatred for anyone.
So, the "All Lives Matter" chant is not racist.
D) 1) Chanting "All Lives Matter!" at a BLM rally is not racist.
2) The BLM protesters hope to raise awareness about, among other things, the inordinate violence African Americans and other people of color suffer in the United States at the hands of the police.
So, Regardless of the merits of the counter-protesters' views, chanting "All Lives Matter!" is not racist.

Question 26

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters have been working to promote awareness and change in response to unjust policing practices that have resulted in wrongful harassment, injury, and death for many people of color. So when groups of counter- protesters push back against BLM by yelling "All Lives Matter!," this has unsurprisingly led to fierce debates about whether these White counter-protesters are doing something racist.
An action is racist if it is based upon false or unjustified beliefs that contribute to oppression or subordination of some racial group. This principle provides a resolution to the debate: chanting "All lives matter!" is indeed racist. White counter-protesters who yell "All lives matter!" at a Black Lives Matter demonstration reveal that they believe that Black people are just whining or making up problems. This belief is unjustified and clearly contributes to racial oppression by perpetuating an unwillingness to face up to serious injustices.

A) 1) BLM protesters have been working to promote awareness and change.
2) Counter-protesters push back by yelling "All Lives Matter!"
So, this has led to fierce debates about whether yelling "All Lives Matter!" is racist.
B) 1) Yelling "All Lives Matter!" in response to a BLM rally is racist.
2)White counter-protesters who yell "All Lives Matter!" at a BLM demonstration believe Black people are just whining or making up problems.
So, this belief is unjustified and clearly contributes to racial oppression.
C) 1) BLM protesters have been working to promote awareness and change in response to unjust policing practices.
2) White counter-protesters who yell "All Lives Matter!" at BLM demonstrations believe Black people are just whining or making up problems.
So, people who yell "All Lives Matter!" contribute to racial oppression.
D) 1) An action is racist if it is based upon false or unjustified beliefs that contribute to oppression or subordination of some racial group.
2) Shouting "All Lives Matter!" in response to a BLM rally is based upon false or unjustified beliefs that contribute to oppression of a racial group.
So, shouting "All Lives Matter!" in response to a BLM rally is racist.

Question 27

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
The Makah Tribe is a culture indigenous to the Pacific Northwest. Among many practices special to the Makah is an annual whale hunt, in which men of the tribe set out in cedar canoes to hunt, and hopefully kill, a gray whale. The returning hunters are met with ceremonies and songs, and precise rules govern how the whale is divided up between the families who make up the tribe.
Many American and European environmentalists are especially protective of whales. This has led some environmentalists to criticize the Makah culture for its annual whale hunt. In criticizing Makah whale hunts, environmentalists go too far.
Makah culture views whale hunts as spiritually important and good, and when Makah people head out on a whale hunt, they are doing something their own culture endorses. It is always wrong for a person from one culture to criticize the culturally-sanctioned practices of a person from another culture. It is therefore morally wrong for environmentalists--who are not Makah themselves--to criticize a Makah person for hunting gray whales.

A) 1) When Makah people head out on a whale hunt, they are doing something their own culture endorses.
2) Some environmentalists criticize the Makah culture for its whale hunt.
So, environmentalists who criticize the Makah culture for its whale hunt are going too far.
B) 1) It is always wrong for a person from one culture to criticize the culturally- sanctioned practices of a person from another culture.
2) Environmentalists who criticize Makah whale hunts are criticizing the culturally-sanctioned practices of a person from another culture.
So, it is wrong for environmentalists to criticize Makah whale hunts.
C) 1) It is morally wrong for environmentalists to criticize a Makah person for hunting gray whales.
2) When Makah people head out on a whale hunt, they are doing something their own culture endorses.
So, criticizing Makah whale hunts is going too far.
D) 1) The Makah practice an annual whale hunt.
2)Some environmentalists criticize the Makah culture for its annual whale hunt.
So, it's always wrong for a person from one culture to criticize the culturally- sanctioned practices of a person from another culture.

Question 28

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Placebos are pills or other substances that look like medications, but are designed to have no medical effect. Sugar pills, which look like prescription pills but are actually made of a small amount of sugar, are a classic example of a placebo. Doctors have known for a long time that if they offer patients placebos and tell them the pills are effective medication, placebos often do help. When patients mistakenly believe they are taking medically effective drugs, they often see improvement in their symptoms.
Some doctors believe it is morally permissible to use placebos. These doctors are wrong. Even if placebos are sometimes effective, it is always wrong for doctors to use placebos on patients, because it is always wrong for health care professionals to deceive their patients.

A) 1) Even if placebos are sometimes effective, it is always wrong for doctors to use placebos on patients.
2) It is always wrong for health care professionals to deceive their patients. So, doctors who believe it is morally permissible to use placebos are wrong.
B) 1) It is always wrong for health care professionals to deceive patients.
2)Doctors who prescribe placebos are deceiving patients. So, it is wrong for doctors to prescribe placebos.
C) 1) Placebos are pills or other substances that look like medications are designed to have no medical effect.
2) When patients mistakenly believe they are taking medically effective drugs, they often see improvement in their symptoms.
So, it is always wrong for health care professionals to deceive their patients.
D) 1) It is always wrong for health care professionals to deceive their patients.
2) Some doctors prescribe placebos for patients.
So, it is wrong for doctors to prescribe placebos for patients.

Question 29

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Look inside the mouth of a human being. You'll find canine teeth and incisors. These teeth are adapted for eating flesh, not vegetables. It isn't just our teeth-the general biological evidence is overwhelming: the human body is by nature able to eat meat. Look to the earliest cave paintings: they show humans hunting animals. It isn't just the cave paintings-the general archaeological evidence is also overwhelming: from our earliest days on Earth, human beings have eaten meat.
In short, the scientific evidence from multiple disciplines proves that eating meat is natural for human beings. And surely behaviors that are natural for human beings are morally permissible for human beings--it would be absurd to claim otherwise.
Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.

A) 1) Eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.
2) The biological evidence is overwhelming: the human body is by nature able to eat meat.
So, eating meat is natural for human beings.
B) 1) From our earliest days on Earth, human beings have eaten meat.
2) Eating meat is natural for humans.
So, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.
C) 1) Behaviors that are natural for human beings are morally permissible for human beings.
2) It's absurd to claim that natural behaviors are not morally permissible. So, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.
D) 1) Behaviors that are natural for humans beings are morally permissible for human beings.
2) Eating meat is natural for human beings.
So, eating meat is morally permissible for human beings.

Question 30

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
In recent years, more school children have begun to identify as trans and to request accommodation of a gender identity that is not the identity they were assigned at birth. In practice, these accommodations usually amount to a request to be referred to using different pronouns, and a request to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. For example, a student who began elementary school as a boy might prefer to
Express the gender of a girl, and so request to be referred to with feminine pronouns and to be allowed to use the girls' bathroom.
These requests for accommodation in pronouns and bathrooms have caused controversy, especially in conservative religious communities. But all too often, the argument against respecting a child's gender identity does nothing more than appeal to a religious text or edict. Public schools cannot avoid setting rules governing the behavior of the children who attend them--that is part of their job. But public schools should never set those rules based solely on highly contested religious premises, and it appears that the only way to argue against accommodating the requests of trans kids is to appeal to highly contested religious premises. That's why public schools should accommodate children's preferences about how they express their gender identity.

A) 1) Public schools should never set rules based solely on highly contested religious premises.
2) Arguments against accommodating trans kids' requests appeal solely to highly contested religious premises.
So, public schools should accommodate trans kids' requests.
B) 1)In recent years, more school children have begun to identify as trans and to request accommodation of a gender identity that is not the identity they were assigned at birth.
2) The argument against respecting a child's gender identity does nothing more than appeal to a religious text or edict.
So, public schools should never set rules based solely on highly contested religious premises.
C) 1) Public schools cannot avoid setting rules governing the behavior of the children who attend them.
2)Public schools should never set those rules based solely on highly contested religious premises.
So, public schools should accommodate the requests of trans kids.
D) 1) Public schools should accommodate the requests of trans students.
2)Public schools should never set rules based solely on highly contested religious premises.
So, the argument against respecting a child's gender identity does nothing more than appeal to a religious text or edict.

Question 31

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
After asking and receiving assurance of confidentiality, a new client, full of remorse, tells his psychologist that two months earlier he gave his 73 year-old wife sleeping pills to end her life peacefully, and then he staged a bathtub drowning that resulted in an accidental death ruling by the medical examiner. His wife, he says, suffered from advanced Alzheimer's disease and was suffering greatly as the disease progressed.
What should the psychologist do here?
Should she report the client?
She most certainly should not. The right action in a situation is the one that could be expected to produce the most total happiness when you weigh up the effects on everyone. In this case, keeping the patient's confidentiality would produce the most happiness, so that's what the psychologist should do.

A) 1) Reporting the client would cause a lot of unhappiness for everyone.
2) The client helped his wife end her life peacefully, which avoided unhappiness. So, the psychologist should not report the client.
B) 1) The psychologist should not report the client.
2) Keeping the client's confidentiality would produce the most happiness.
So, the right action in a situation is the one that could be expected to produce the most total happiness when you weigh up the effects on everyone.
C) 1) The right action in a situation is the one that could be expected to produce the most total happiness when you weigh up the effects on everyone.
2) Keeping the client's confidentiality would produce the most total happiness. So, it is right for the psychologist to keep the client's confidentiality.
D) 1) The client told the psychologist he gave his wife sleeping pills to end her life.
2) It would produce the most happiness if the psychologist kept the client's confidentiality.
So, the psychologist should keep the client's confidentiality.

Question 32

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
A fetus potentially has a right to life. (If allowed to develop, it will become a child, and children definitely have a right to life.) If someone potentially has a right, then we should treat them as though they already do have that right. For this reason, we should treat fetuses as if they have the same right to life that children have.

A) 1) If allowed to develop, a fetus will become a child.
2) A child has a right to life.
So, we should treat fetuses as if they have the same right to life that children have.
B) 1) If someone potentially has a right, then we should treat them as though they already do have that right.
2) A fetus potentially has a right to life.
So, we should treat fetuses as though they already have a right to life.
C) 1) A fetus potentially has a right to life.
2) If allowed to develop, a fetus will become a child.
So, if someone potentially has a right, then we should treat them as though they already do have that right.
D) 1) If someone potentially has a right, we should treat them as though they already do have that right.
2) If allowed to develop, a fetus will become a child.
So, we should treat a fetus as though it already has a right to life.

Question 33

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Charles Murray is notorious for his view, explained in his 1994 book The Bell Curve, that different racial groups are genetically disposed to have different levels of intelligence, and that, on average, Black people are inherently less intelligent than White and Asian people. Although the "science" of the book has been widely and repeatedly debunked, many white supremacists remain devoted fans of the The Bell Curve.
In 2017, Charles Murray gave a talk on an unrelated topic at Middlebury College. Soon after he started, students in the audience began shouting over top of him, which made it impossible for the audience to hear him and forced him to stop speaking. Afterwards, student leaders of the protest said that they believed it was important to shut down the speech, to avoid giving him a platform from which to spread bigoted views.
Murray's case raises a challenging question: is it morally right to prevent a speaker from speaking, on the grounds that they hold bigoted views?
At least in Murray's case, the answer is "No, it is not morally right." We should respond to the speech of others in a way that best helps the audience form true beliefs.
Silencing Charles Murray's speech at Middlebury didn't do that. Allowing him to speak, and then vigorously and rigorously critiquing his views would have been the morally better strategy. After all, vigorously critiquing his views would help the audience understand why his views are mistaken, while shutting down his speech only entrenches his supporters in their mistaken beliefs. It was wrong for Middleburry students to shut down Murray's talk.

A) 1) Silencing Charles Murray does not best help the audience form true beliefs.
2) Students should not silence Charles Murray.
So, we should respond to others' speech in a way that best helps the audience form true beliefs.
B) 1) Allowing Charles Murray to speak, and then vigorously and rigorously critiquing his views is the best strategy.
2) Silencing Charles Murray doesn't help the audience form true beliefs. So, students shouldn't silence Charles Murray.
C) 1) Shutting down Charles Murray's speech only entrenches his supporters.
2) Letting Charles Murray speak and then vigorously critiquing his views would help the audience understand why they are mistaken.
So, it was not morally right for students to shut down Charles Murray's speech.
D) 1) We should respond to the speech of others in a way that best helps the audience form true beliefs.
2)Students silencing Charles Murray does not best help the audience form true beliefs.
So, students should not silence Charles Murray.

Question 34

Which is the best standard-form representation of the following Argument from Principle?
Charles Murray has claimed, in print, that Black people are genetically inferior to White people. That kind of racist claim is totally unsupported by science, but has nevertheless supported attitudes and policies of racial oppression throughout the history of the USA.
Students, such as those at Middlebury College, who have staged noisy protests to prevent Charles Murray from speaking at their college deserve our moral respect. It is always right to prevent people from contributing to the oppression of minority groups, and that is what they did. Allowing Murray a platform would contribute to the oppression of minority groups, and those students stepped in and stopped it.

A) 1) It was right to prevent Charles Murray from speaking.
2) Preventing Charles Murray from speaking stops him from contributing to the oppression of minority groups.
So, it is always right to prevent people from contributing to the oppression of minority groups.
B) 1) It is always right to prevent people from contributing to the oppression of minority groups.
2)Preventing Charles Murray from speaking prevents a person from contributing to the oppression of minority groups.
So, it was right to prevent Charles Murray from speaking.
C) 1) Charles Murray has claimed, in print, that Black people are genetically inferior to White people.
2) Allowing Murray a platform to speak would contribute to the oppression of minority groups.
So, students did the right thing when they stopped Murray from speaking.
D) 1) Charles Murray's racist claim is totally unsupported by science.
2) Charles Murray's claims contribute to the oppression of minority groups. So, it is right to prevent Charles Murray from speaking.