OCPCOE = Other citizens permitted to access our communications at their own expense
From this, the author concludes that public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.
We should note that public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly or artistic activities is neither "Not ACOE" nor "Not OPCOE." Thus, this argument negates the sufficient condition of the principle to incorrectly conclude the negation of the necessary condition, i.e. not censorship. This is a flawed argument because we know that we Don't Just Negate!
Our correct answer will also be negating the sufficient condition of a general principle to incorrectly conclude the negation of the necessary condition.
(A) while flawed is incorrect because it is not the same flaw of Don't Just Negate that we encountered in the stimulus. We know that:
UH ==> not J J ==> not UH
This argument is flawed because all we know from the fact that something is a just action is that it is not causing unnecessary harm. However, we cannot conclude that the action itself must be necessary.
(B) while flawed is incorrect because it is not the same flaw of Don't Just Negate that we encountered in the stimulus. Though we cannot tell just from using polite forms of address whether one has good manners, we have not been given any information on what occurs when people first meet each other. It's possible that something else that occurs during the first meeting of two people could be sufficient to conclude whether or not that person has good manners.
(C) while flawed is incorrect because it is not the same flaw of Don't Just Negate that we encountered in the stimulus. The issue with this answer choice is that there is a gap between the premise and conclusion. We are missing the assumption that two different things with the same name must come from the same origin.
(D) is CORRECT because we are presented with a similar flaw of Don't Just Negate. The first sentence can be diagrammed:
ROLBO ==> H not H ==> not ROLBO
Then the answer choice concludes:
ROR ==> not H H ==> not ROR
Thus, this answer choice takes something that is not risking own life to benefit other people "ROLBO," i.e. ROR, to conclude not heroic. But, the negation of the sufficient condition does not prove the negation of the necessary condition. We merely know that the negation of the necessary condition (i.e the sufficient condition of the contrapositive) will prove "not ROLBO." Therefore, as with the stimulus, we have the flaw of Don't Just Negate.
(E) while flawed is incorrect because it is not the same flaw of Don't Just Negate that we encountered in the stimulus. Just because perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder, doesn't necessarily mean no object can be called beautiful because not everyone will see beauty in it. There is clearly a missing assumption here but we are looking for the flaw of Don't Just Negate.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns.
EleazarNovember 9, 2018
How on earth does that "public awareness" phrase play into any of this?
Jacob-RNovember 9, 2018
@Eleazar I'm not sure I follow your question. Can you respond again with a bit more specificity as to what is confusing you? Thanks much!
