Hi
Can you please review this questions? I am not sure at all why the correct answer is C.
Thanks
MehranApril 4, 2018
@texasjohnrh @erojas of course!
We are looking for a principle that would justify Jamie's response to Arnold.
What was Jamie's response? "The airline is NOT morally obligated to pay you any compensation."
But notice how the question stem is phrased, " . . . that an airline IS morally obligated to compensate . . . "
In order to conclude "not moral obligated" we would need "morally obligated" to be our sufficient condition. This way, in our contrapositive, "not morally obligated" would be the necessary condition and we would invoke the sufficient condition of the contrapositive to arrive at it.
Just based on this (A) is eliminated because in (A) "morally obligated" is our necessary condition because "if" introduces the sufficient condition.
(B) and (C) could work since "morally obligated" is our sufficient condition because "only if" introduces the necessary condition.
Let's take a look at (B) first. Was there a reason Arnold was forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather?
Yes, there was. He was denied a seat because the airline had overbooked. As such, we cannot negate the necessary condition in (B).
Compare that with (C). Would Arnold have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight?
Yes, the original flight was canceled due to bad weather. Notice this negates the necessary condition in (C), i.e. invokes the sufficient condition of the contrapositive, and allows us to arrive that the conclusion that the airline is not morally obligated to compensate Arnold:
PR: MOC ==> not FTLT FTLT ==> not MOC
P: FTLT
C: not MOC
So (C) would be the correct answer.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
