The authors would be most likely to disagree over whether

Aidan on August 4, 2019

Why isn't the answer E?

I found the analogy of the doctor disclosing side effects very similar, but the correct answer is apparently C


Ravi on August 4, 2019


Happy to help. Let's look at (C) and (E).

(E) says, "when considering a possible course of action, it is usually
a relatively easy task to weigh the costs and benefits associated with
that action"

The problem with (E) is that neither speaker discusses the ease or
difficulty of weighing costs and benefits of actions, so we can get
rid of this choice.

(C) says, "the judicial duty to be candid is justified regardless of
whether following that duty produces good outcomes"

Passage A's author says that it's wrong for judges to lie because
their lying would conflict with moral principles. Passage A's author
supports judicial candor because she thinks it's the right thing to
do. Passage B's author, on the other hand, supports judicial candor
because a lack of candor would be a detriment to the judiciary. For
Passage B's author, the main concern is the cost-benefit analysis.
Thus, Passage B's reasoning for supporting judicial candor is
contingent upon the fact that judicial candor helps create positive
outcomes and a lack of judicial candor results in negative outcomes.
The authors would definitely disagree over (C), so it's the correct
answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Sawyer on July 27, 2021

Hello, why would answer choice D be wrong? I understood that author of passage A is grounded in the idea of a moral obligation to be candid, but author of passage B is concerned with cost-benefit analysis. So wouldn't it make sense that the authors of passage A and B would disagree on candidness as a general rule in life outside a legal setting? Or does the fact that it is outside a legal setting make it out of scope?