#1 - Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

Mary’s argument proceeds by first summarizing two claims from Jamal’s argument. First, Jamal
acknowledges Mary’s legal right to sell her business if she wishes. Second, Jamal argues that
because of the potential suffering of Mary’s loyal employees, she has no right to sell. Mary attempts
to dismiss Jamal’s claims as absurd by inferring that Jamal cannot simultaneously believe Mary has
the right to sell and has no right to sell. Mary’s characterization is flawed, however, because when
Jamal denies her right to sell, he’s not talking about legal rights.

Answer choice (A): Mary is explicit in her description of Jamal’s position. She notes that he
acknowledges her legal right to sell the business whenever she wishes, which precludes the
possibility that Jamal’s objection is based on timing. Thus, it cannot be that Jamal simply means she
has no right to sell the business at this time, and A must be incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Although it is possible that employees have rights related to the sale of the
business (as, for example, potential stockholders), overlooking this possibility is not a flaw. This
argument depends solely on the claims already offered by Jamal and whether those claims are
inherently absurd. Therefore, Mary’s argument is not vulnerable to criticism that it overlooks others
arguments regarding her sale of the business.

Answer choice (C): Many flaw in the reasoning answer choices (including four of the five here)
point out what is missing from the stimulus. To be correct, such answers must not only describe
something the author omits but also something necessary to a valid argument. Mary does not need to
provide evidence for the claim that she has a right to sell the business, since she is only interested in
demonstrating the absurd consequences of Jamal’s argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Jamal claims that Mary has the legal right to
sell her business but has no right to cause her loyal employees to suffer. Mary’s conclusion suggests
that she sees no distinction between the two rights and that Jamal’s claims are mutually exclusive.
This overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of rights (especially given
that Jamal distinguishes a legal right from the other right), and is a flaw in her argument.

Answer choice (E): This answer describes a source argument. However, Mary calls Jamal’s
statements absurd—not his motivation or character—and thereby avoids committing a source
argument flaw.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I went a bit too quickly and got this question wrong. However, upon review, I still couldn't understand why B was wrong? It seems just as plausible as D. Can you help me understand?

V/r,

Micah

[Claire Horan]

Please provide your approach to the question and your thoughts with respect to the answer choices you've mentioned. The forum is supposed to be interactive and tailored to student needs, not simply an answer key.

[mpoulson]

Sure, when I initially selected B I thought the reasoning to be valid. I believed this to be the case because Jamal has implied that she has the right to sale the business, but can't due to the rights of her employees. For that reason, it doesn't seem incorrect, to think that her employees also have a right to the sale of the business. I can see support for D and thus don't have a problem with it being right. Furthermore, even if Jamal is referring to other rights that still engage the selling of the business which makes B still seem plausible. Hope that clarifies what I meant. Thanks for the help. This discussion board is really helpful for service members who are stationed overseas.

- Micah

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Micah,

Thanks for your question, and for your service overseas. I knew you were in the service! Totally guessed it.

Anyway, let's look at what the question stem is asking: what's the biggest flaw in Mary's argument? Well, that means, basically, what is the biggest problem with her conclusion? So first, we identify her conclusion: that Jamal's statements, taken together, are absurd. She arrives at this conclusion by pointing out how Jamal acknowledges her legal right to sell but still claims she has no right to do so.

So, while B may be true (let's imagine, for argument's sake, that it is; maybe we live somewhere in Europe and employees must approve the sale of any business), it does not describe a flaw in Mary's reasoning, because it does not explain how Jamal's simultaneous and apparently contradictory claims about Mary's rights are not absurd (as Mary has interpreted them to be).

The much more simple and straightforward problem with Mary's reasoning is that she has overlooked the possibility that the are rights other than legal rights; clearly this is what Jamal means - she's legally entitled to sell, but morally it would be wrong at the moment.

Does that help?

[mpoulson]

That is perfect thanks.

[bli2016]

I actually chose A for this question before choosing D, and the reason I chose D was because I had come across this type of "ambiguous meaning" questions more often, so it was more by intuition than careful reasoning. Could someone explain why A is wrong? Is it just because it adds information that is not supported by the premises (that Jamal only meant that Mary did not have a right to sell at this moment in time)? Thanks.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi bli2016,

Answer choice (A) does add new information to the stimulus regarding the timing of Mary's"right" to sell the business. However, even if Jamal meant that Mary has no right to sell the business at this time, this wouldn't address Jamal's argument about the sale of the business harming employees. Timing isn't the missing link in this particular argument -- perhaps employees would still suffer if the business were sold at another time? We don't have enough information to assess whether this is the case.

By contrast, the shift in the argument between legal rights ("legitimate owner . . . with a legal right to sell") and moral rights (no right to make employees suffer) is best summarized by answer choice (D). This explanation summarizes the point of disagreement between Mary and Jamal -- they're just not talking about the same kind of rights.

Hope this helps!

Athena Dalton

[TheKingLives]

I have to say I find no legitimate reason why B is any less correct than D. I have never heard of the phrase "moral rights" and never understood rights to mean anything other than legal rights. How is that something I was supposed to know?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi TheKingLives,

Answer choice B cannot be correct here, because it does not describe something that is a problem for Mary's particular argument. While it's true to say that Mary's argument does not directly consider the possibility raised by answer choice B, that overlooked possibility would only be a problem for Mary's argument if the fact stated in answer choice B would (by itself) weaken her conclusion. But the fact answer choice B describes cannot by itself weaken Mary's conclusion. Mary's conclusion is limited to saying that Jamal's "statements taken together are absurd." Jamal's statements about rights are only about Mary's rights. So knowing that the employees have some rights related to the sale of the business would not do anything to help us evaluate whether Jamal's specific statements about Mary's rights are "absurd" when considered side-by-side. We'd need more information (information we don't have) to know whether the employees' rights related to the sale could nullify Mary's legal right to sell. If the employees' rights couldn't nullify Mary's legal right to sell, then Jamal's statements about Mary's rights still could be absurd.

While it's true that it's helpful to know of the existence of "moral rights" to answer this question correctly (more on that here, if you're interested in the subject!: https://www.smu.edu/Provost/Ethics/Reso ... Background), one doesn't necessarily need such a conception to see that answer choice D presents a possibility that would, if true, weaken Mary's conclusion.

In the argument, Mary began by saying Jamal acknowledges she has a "legal right" to sell the business. She goes on to report that Jamal argues she nevertheless has "no right to do so." What if he means something different by "right" in the second part of the argument (something other than a "legal right")? Well then what he's saying is not absurd, undermining Mary's conclusion.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy