Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person only if the criticism will not seriously harm ...

Naz on September 26, 2014

Let's diagram the principle:

"One should criticize the works or actions of another person only if the criticism will not seriously harm the person criticized and one does so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself."

SCAP ==> not SH & HEBS
SH or not HEBS ==> not SCAP

The application concludes that Jarrett should not have criticized Ostertag's essay. But, we still don't have any of the sufficient conditions to properly infer this conclusion.

We either need to know that Ostertag was seriously harmed or that Jarrett had not hoped or did not expect to benefit someone other than himself.

Answer choice (A) provides us with the second sufficient condition: "Jarrett knew that the defects in the essay were so obvious that pointing them out would benefit no one."

Thus, Jarrett did not expect to benefit someone other than himself. So answer choice (A) gives us "not HEBS," which is enough to conclude "not SCAP."

Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Christy-Earls on March 27, 2019

Can you explain why D doesn't work as the correct answer

Minerva on July 25, 2019

Is E incorrect because it specifically says that Jarrett didn't expect OSTERTAG to benefit? If yes, why can't we say Ostertag = someone other than Jarrett and conclude that E is the correct answer?

Irina on July 26, 2019

@Christy & @Minerva,

For the application to work, we need to meet one of two conditions:

(1) criticism will seriously harm the person criticized OR
(2) criticism is NOT done in the hope or expectation of benefitting someone other than oneself.

(D) is incorrect because it only matters if J did not criticize O with the hope or expectation to benefit anyone other than oneself, it is sufficient that no one else benefited and not necessary that J incurred any benefit, i.e. gain prestige, himself;

(E) is incorrect because it only suggests that J did not expect O to benefit, but it might still be the case that he hoped or expected that someone other than himself and O would benefit. If that is the case and someone else benefits from J's criticism, this fact alone is insufficient to satisfy condition (2) above.

Does this make sense?

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Milo-Hammer on August 4, 2019

Can you explain why the other answers are wrong

Ravi on August 4, 2019

@Milo-Hammer,

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

(B) says, "Jarrett's criticism of the essay would have been to
Ostertag's benefit only if Ostertag had been unaware of the defects in
the essay at the time."

The problem with (B) is that the principle does not discuss when or
how the criticism would be to a person's benefit. It isn't necessary
for Ostertag to be unaware of the defects in order for him to benefit,
so we can get rid of (B).

(C) says, "Jarrett knew that the criticism might antagonize Ostertag."

The problem with (C) is that the principle doe not discuss whether the
criticism antagonizes anybody, so (C) does not apply to the argument.
Thus, we can get rid of it.

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