#23 - Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline

[LSAT2018]

Thank you for your prompt response. Would the statements below be correct to represent the Jamie's argument then?


Morally Responsible → Not Forced to Take Later Flight in Absence of Overbooking
Forced to Take Later Flight in Absence of Overbooking → Not Morally Responsible


So only if the passenger was not forced to take a later flight (thus losing a seat on the airline) when there were no overbooking issues would the airline be morally responsible but the weather conditions have forced him to take a later flight, thus making it not morally responsible (contrapositive)?

[Shannon Parker]

Thank you for your prompt response. Would the statements below be correct to represent the Jamie's argument then?


Morally Responsible → Not Forced to Take Later Flight in Absence of Overbooking
Forced to Take Later Flight in Absence of Overbooking → Not Morally Responsible


So only if the passenger was not forced to take a later flight (thus losing a seat on the airline) when there were no overbooking issues would the airline be morally responsible but the weather conditions have forced him to take a later flight, thus making it not morally responsible (contrapositive)?

Hey there LSAT2018,

That's basically it. I would be careful with how you word it. It's not "when there were no overbooking issues" but "if not for the overbooking issues." It is the overbooking that makes the airline responsible, but only if there are no intervening factors (the weather).

Good job.
Shannon

[madelineunruh01]

This is a difficult question but one that can be elucidated without getting into the weeds of the convoluted answer choices.

First, Jamie establishes that the airline is necessarily not obligated to pay compensation because of Arnold's circumstances. Therefore the lack of obligation occurs on the right hand side of the arrow in Jamie's conditional. The question stem introduces the answer choices by giving the sufficient condition that the airline is obligated to pay compensation. This formulation is ipso facto the contrapositive of Jamie's reasoning. Jamie concludes with the necessary "not morally obligated." The principle leads with the sufficient "morally obligated."

What follows must be the necessary negated sufficient condition of Jamie's conclusion. The key word is necessary. Since the answer choice must introduce a necessary condition, answer choices (A), (D), and (E) are out. All of these introduce sufficient conditions.

(B) introduces a necessary condition ("only if") but it actually negates Jamie's conclusion.

(C) introduces the correct necessary condition that the only way the airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger for a missed flight is if that flight wouldn't have been cancelled anyways due to circumstances outside the airline's control.

The answer to your first question is no, not necessarily. You have moral obligation on the right, so it's still possible because of some other reason.

There is nothing wrong with answer choice (C). Stick with what is written.

Morally responsible would not have been forced to take later flight in absence of overbooking

Jonathon-
You say that "Jamie establishes that the airline is necessarily not obligated to pay compensation because of Arnold's circumstance." Is that because it is her main conclusion? In other words, you are saying that since her main conclusion is that the airline is not morally obligated to pay compensation, she establishes that the airline is necessarily not obligated to pay compensation? When I read the stimulus, I did not immediately recognize Jamie's opinion as conditional reasoning.
Thanks,
Maddie

[Dana D]

Hey Maddie,

I wouldn't say that the airline not being obligated to pay is the necessary condition just because it is the conclusion. Instead, think of the entire statement Jamie is making. Jamie presents two conditions:

1. someone being denied a seat on an earlier flight who would have still missed their business meeting

2. the airline not being morally obligated to pay compensation.

In conditional logic, Jamie is saying:

If you are denied a seat on an earlier flight but would have missed your business meeting anyway the airline is not morally obligated to pay

We're looking for an answer choice that makes Jamie's response make sense. Jamie's entire reasoning for why the airline isn't obligated to pay is because Arnold would have missed his meeting anyway due to the weather forcing his original flight to be cancelled. Because the end result of him missing the meeting would have been the same no matter what the airline did, Jamie thinks the airline is off the hook. We need an answer choice that addresses this gap in Jamie's reasoning - by adding in Answer Choice (C), we can now logically draw Jamie's conclusion:

Arnold would have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked due to the weather, and the only time an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger is when the passenger would not have had to take a later flight if not for the overbooking, so the airline is not morally obligated.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Stimulus

"Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the airline had overbooked the flight. Since I was forced to fly on the next available flight, which did not depart until two hours later, I missed an important business meeting. Even though the flight on which I had a reservation was canceled at the last minute due to bad weather, the airline should still pay me compensation for denying me a seat on the flight."

Jamie: "The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway."

Question Stem

"A principle that, if established, justifies Jamie’s response to Arnold is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations"

Answer Choices

(A) ​​"if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the original flight"

(B) "only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight’s being canceled due to bad weather"

(C) "only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight"

(D) "even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were that the original flight is canceled due to bad weather"

(E) "even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight"

Jamie's response analysis:

Premise: "Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway."

Conclusion: "The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation."

Premise: Seat -> NOT meeting (meeting -> NOT seat) (AKA NOT overbooked -> later flight) (AKA NOT later flight -> overbooked) (To put things in the same terms as the answer choices???)

Conclusion: NOT pay


Answer choices analysis:

(A) ​​"if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the original flight"

later flight -> overbooked (NOT overbooked -> NOT later flight) (Your flight is canceled they overbooked?)

(B) "only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight’s being canceled due to bad weather"

later flight -> reason other than the original flight’s being canceled due to bad weather (for example overbooking)

NOT overbooked -> NOT later flight (Your flight is canceled and it's NOT because of bad weather?)

(C) "only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight"

NOT overbooked -> NOT later flight (later flight -> overbooked) (Your flight is not overbooked and your flight is not canceled)

(D) "even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were that the original flight is canceled due to bad weather"

original flight is canceled due to bad weather -> later flight (NOT later flight -> NOT canceled due to bad weather) (could be canceled due to something else, could not be canceled) (Your flight is canceled?)

(E) "even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight"

later flight -> NOT overbooked (overbooked -> NOT later flight) (Your flight is canceled they didn't overbook?)

Because this is a Justify problem, we need premise + answer choice = conclusion, or Seat -> NOT meeting + answer choice = NOT pay, right? In this case something like your flight is not overbooked your flight is canceled + ((C) Your flight is not overbooked and your flight is not canceled) so not compensation? Ugh, I see how the sufficient conditions line up but I don't really understand the logic here. Am I supposed to understand all of this to mean if your flight is overbooked it doesn't matter whether your flight is canceled or not the airline doesn't owe compensation?

Also, when I look at the contrapositives here then things don't seem to fit, yet we're supposed to find a principle that fits compensation not NOT compensation?

Help. H e l p. HHHHHEEEElllpp.

Please. Thank you.

[Dana D]

Hey Kristina,

You don't need to diagram out the conditional logic if it makes things more confusing for you. Personally, I was confused by your logic and I think you made it more confusing for yourself by reducing ideas down to only two words like "NOT flight" - you're no longer thinking of the actual conversational meaning of the sentences it's just almost mathmatical.

Premise: Seat -> NOT meeting (meeting -> NOT seat) (AKA NOT overbooked -> later flight) (AKA NOT later flight -> overbooked) (To put things in the same terms as the answer choices???)

Conclusion: NOT pay

Here, you end up with a conditional statement and then a random idea "conclusion: NOT pay" that you're then trying to match up to the answer choices. Read through my earlier explanation and see if you can make sense of it with a less formulaic approach.

I wouldn't say that the airline not being obligated to pay is the necessary condition just because it is the conclusion. Instead, think of the entire statement Jamie is making. Jamie presents two conditions:

1. someone being denied a seat on an earlier flight who would have still missed their business meeting

2. the airline not being morally obligated to pay compensation.

In conditional logic, Jamie is saying:

If you are denied a seat on an earlier flight but would have missed your business meeting anyway the airline is not morally obligated to pay

We're looking for an answer choice that makes Jamie's response make sense. Jamie's entire reasoning for why the airline isn't obligated to pay is because Arnold would have missed his meeting anyway due to the weather forcing his original flight to be cancelled. Because the end result of him missing the meeting would have been the same no matter what the airline did, Jamie thinks the airline is off the hook. We need an answer choice that addresses this gap in Jamie's reasoning - by adding in Answer Choice (C), we can now logically draw Jamie's conclusion:

Arnold would have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked due to the weather, and the only time an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger is when the passenger would not have had to take a later flight if not for the overbooking, so the airline is not morally obligated.

Hope that helps