Cannot Be True Questions - - Question 6

Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that i...

Mazen April 11, 2020

Please help with diagramming.

Hello, I read the thread, because I truly appreciate the discussions made by the various instructors. Regarding diagramming answer choice A, however, my analysis was not paralleled. I do not want to abandon my analysis because it made the most sense to me and led me to the correct answer choice A. And yet, I am worried that it is wrong and led me to the correct answer choice by happenstance. So please read it, and tell me if my reasoning is logical. Answer choice "A": "law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another." I interpreted it as follows: "Not all immoral circumstances are covered by the law." I am aware that the question stem concerns the group of people who cannot conceive of something that can be both "legally permissible," and "immoral." If this group of people -- who, per the principle in the stimulus, cannot conceive of something that is both legally permissible and moral -- believe that there are some immoral actions that are not covered by the law, then they believe that the law does not prohibit some immoral actions. In other words, this group people believe that there is at least one immoral action that is covered by the law, hence not legally prohibited, and therefore legally permitted. However, all immoral actions are legally impermissible per the contrapositive of the conditional principle set forth in the stimulus: LP---->M; contrapositive: ~M---->~LP. Hence the inconsistency/contradiction of they beliefs. In retrospect, I took the pains of explaining my thinking because I am worried that my interpretation and subsequently my qualification of answer choice A (immoral actions-some-legally permissible) is a misinterpretation, and I got lucky. Please confirm whether my logic is correct. Thank you Mazen

Replies
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

BenMingov April 11, 2020

Hi Mazen, I tried looking up the discussion of this question that you are referring to but nothing comes up when I search for it. Let me try to look at your questions with a fresh perspective and see if we come to understand the same thing.

I'd like to start by saying that diagramming is a very useful tool and one that you seem to understand quite well. At the same time, I think an over reliance on it might be detrimental at times. While the passage is clearly diagrammable, let's try discussing this without the use of diagramming at all, and then just to be sure to answer your question we will discuss the diagrams.

Here, these people believe that it is not possible for something to be both legal and immoral. This would not align with the belief that there are immoral actions that are not covered by law. This is because if it was not covered by law, it would be legal. But then how can it be it legal and immoral???

This, to me, makes more sense. I would like to emphasize that no diagramming was necessary here. How do we know when to diagram? Well, I think when the passage is full of sufficient/necessary language, then it is useful. If all of the answer choices are of that structure too, then it also makes sense. It comes down to seeing a ton of questions and finding patterns.

Going back to the diagramming. I think your thinking is good to go.

If immoral, then not legally permissible (according to the passage)

Answer choice says: immoral -some- legally permissible

Those two do not mesh well.

Again, if there is something left unaddressed, let me know. I'd be happy to take a second look!

Mazen April 12, 2020

Ben

You diagrammed answer-choice A the same way I did. You reassured me that my confidence was well-placed.

Nothing was left unaddressed; thank you very much Ben!