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

[jared.xu]

This is a very weird justify-PR question. We are taught to answer usual justify questions by finding a hole in the argument and try to fill it with our prephrase. I thought that the answer would have something to do with Jamie's reasoning, which is that even if Arnold had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, he would have missed his business meeting due to bad weather. So I thought that the answer would have something to do with an airline compensating a passenger if he/she would not have been delayed as well due to other factors, such as weather. It appears that the right answer C merely states that the airline is not obligated to pay for overbooking. This answer seems to ignore completely Jamie's reasoning that Arnold would have missed his meeting anyway due to the weather. I chose A because it seems to say that because overbooking is not the only reason for the delay (the weather is a factor too), he should not be paid. Of course, it states it in the conditional. The airline should pay if the only reason Arnold is delayed is the overbooking. Arnold does not meet the sufficient condition (weather is also involved), and so he is not eligible for compensation. So please tell me why A is wrong and C correct, and what we could learn from this question. Thank you.

[Steve Stein]

This is a clever one--the second sentence in Jamie's conclusion is designed to throw us off track. Since we are asked to justify Jamie's response, though, your focus should be on Jamie's conclusion, which is that the airline is not morally obligated to compensate Arnold. Only correct answer choice C frees the airline of any obligation in this particular case.

Correct answer choice C provides that the airline is only morally responsible if a passenger wouldn't have had to reschedule but for the overbooking. In other words, if the passenger would have had to reschedule anyway, then the airline is not responsible. If this is the guiding principle, then Jamie is justified in concluding that in Arnold's case, the airline is not responsible.

Answer choice A deals with situations in which the overbooking is the only reason for rescheduling. Since that is not the situation in Arnold's case, this principle is not applicable to this scenario and thus fails to justify Jamie's conclusion.

[jared.xu]

Thank you. Your explanations, especially that for answer C, are extremely helpful. But I still do have a question on answer A. You said: "Answer choice A deals with situations in which the overbooking is the only reason for rescheduling. Since that is not the is situation in Arnold's case, this principle is not applicable to this." I totally understand and agree with your first sentence. But I would continue on that train of thought and argue that precisely because answer A is not the situation in Arnold's case (overbooking is not the only reason, weather is also a reason), he is not eligible. So I do not understand why "this principle is not applicable to Arnold." Clearly, he does not meet the sufficient condition of answer A to be eligible for compensation. Thank you in advance for replying.

[Steve Stein]

Take another look at answer choice A which, combined with the portion of the principle stated in the question stem, provides the following principle:

if the only reason for the later flight is overbooking, then there is moral obligation

overbooking is the sole reason --> moral obligation.

This, it seems is where you may have drawn a mistaken negation. We cannot conclude from the above conditional diagram the following mistaken negation:

overbooking is not the sole reason --> no moral obligation.

Since this answer choice does not actually justify the conclusion that the airline has no moral obligation, it can safely be eliminated.

Let me know if that makes sense--thanks!

[jared.xu]

Thank you Steve! Now that I see the problem is the textbook "mistaken negation," I feel kind of stupid. I guess I was somehow looking for a "compensation principle" in which Arnold's case does not apply, rather than a principle that flat out states that Arnold will not get compensation. It goes to show that I'm really bad at solving questions that come out of the left field.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. That's actually a great one to show how tricky some of that conditional reasoning stuff can be (it would be much more difficult to explain without the use of diagrams).

[jiyounglee]

I still have a difficulty understanding a and c.

so for a,

only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that airline overbooked the original flight moral obligation

contrapositive of that is

moral obligation overbooking

Does this mean, only in case overbooking did not happen, airline will have no moral obligation?

Also,

for c,

I do understand that this would be a better answer if it says "airline is only morally responsible if a passenger would not have had to reschedule but for the overbooking."

However, I don't understand how that is same as the answer choice which is

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

Can you elaborate how had the airline not overbooked the original flight is same as but for the overbooking?

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

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

[LSAT2018]

I understand that the part about Jamie's answer being the contrapositive of the answer. But I had difficulty understanding answer (C) morally obligated only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight.
Does it mean that there was no overbooking and the passenger could not take another flight and was just unable to fly?
Could I get an paraphrase/explanation of what that means?

[Shannon Parker]

I understand that the part about Jamie's answer being the contrapositive of the answer. But I had difficulty understanding answer (C) morally obligated only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight.
Does it mean that there was no overbooking and the passenger could not take another flight and was just unable to fly?
Could I get an paraphrase/explanation of what that means?

Answer Choice C "only if the passenger would not have been forced to a take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight." Means only if the airline had not overbooked the flight, Arnold would not have had to take a later flight. In this case, because of the weather, the overbooking was irrelevant to whether Arnold would have had to take a later flight (i.e. even if they had not overbooked the flight he still would have had to take a later flight). Therefore, the airline should not have to compensate Arnold.

Hope this helps clear it up.
Shannon