LR Question 18 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: In order to encourage personal responsibility…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle
PRINCIPLE: Society shouldn’t restrict the actions of adults, unless those actions will cause harm to others.
ANALYSIS: To violate this principle, we’d have to restrict the actions of adults, when those actions were not harming others.
Note that the principle never says we should ban things that harm others. It just says it might be ok to do that. Harm is a necessary condition for banning, but not a sufficient condition.
___________
- Students, homework….hey, these are kids. The principle only talks about adults.
- This talks about not restricting the ability of others to profit from the invention. That’s perfectly ok: the principle tells us not to restrict.
- The principle never tells us to ban anything. It only tells us not to ban.
- This sounds ok. We’re restricting the actions of adults, but those actions harm others. The principle says we can restrict actions that harm others.
- CORRECT. Adults only harm themselves when they ignore warning labels. The principle says not to restrict the actions of adults unless they harm others.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
Is this stimulus an argument or a premise set. What could be the loophole if it is an argument
Principle questions are not about analyzing arguments and premises in the traditional sense. The task is to evaluate whether a specific situation (the answer choices) is consistent or inconsistent with this principle. This process doesn’t require breaking the stimulus into premises and conclusions because the stimulus is not structured as a classic argument – it’s more like a broad normative statement.
But to answer your question, this one is not a premise set, rather more of an argument. Not sure what you mean by loophole in this context. If you elaborate on what the confusion is/why you’re wondering this, I may be able to help better!
Doesn’t the principle say don’t bank “except to prevent negative effect on others” ? Smoking causes a negative effect on others, therefore it should be banned, no?
The principle was about when NOT to ban. It didn’t say bans were required.
Ban/prevent – detrimental effect
Thus, it is okay to ban if it has a detrimental effect. Should check again.
Only if the detrimental effect is on others. E is correct because the detriment is only to yourself.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
The explanations to the answers are confusing. Such as for answer choice A. Your explanation entails that the answer choice is in fact inconsistent with the principle (as for the rest of the answer choices as well). All other answers choices besides E should be consistent with the principle. However, your explanation to these answer choices literally shows that they all are inconsistent.
I am not sure you’ve understood the question or the explanation. The principle is a rule for adults. It can only apply to adults.
A talks about kids (students). The principle doesn’t tell us anything about what to do with kids. So this situation is consistent with the principle. Consistent with = does not contradict. So, for example, travelling to Mongolia is consistent with the principle, as the principle says nothing about whether you should or should not.
E contradicts the principle, which is why it is correct. The principle said not to restrict adults unless they harm others. Whereas E says restrict adults from harming themselves. That’s exactly what the principle said NOT to restrict.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Hi Graeme, thank you for this. You get to the point with the explanations and the analysis helps me understand complex stimulus. On PT 69 Section 1, Q18 answer choice (C) your explanation seems inconsistent with what is stated. You mentioned that the principle never tells us to ban anything but the answer choice;s conclusion is the opposite (“it should not be banned”). Is this a mistake or did I make a wrong inference here?
Thanks again!
The question is asking us to *violate* the principle. The principle says “don’t ban”. The only way to violate it is if an answer says “ban something”.
As you say, C says not to ban something. We’re looking for an answer that DOES ban something. So answer C doesn’t violate the principle, and therefore incorrect. Hope that helps!
It says to not ban “except to prevent negative effects on others”. Smoking clearly causes a negative effect on others, therefore it should be banned, right?
No, the principle doesn’t say when you should ban. It only says when you should not ban.
For instance, if I say “Don’t go to the docks”
I am not saying where you should go or which other places you should not go. There is only one way to violate the rule: by going to the docks.
So the only way to violate the principle above is by banning something. You can’t violate it by not banning.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.