#22 - If violations of any of a society’s explicit rules

[est15]

Besides the fact that the author confuses routine with never, I think that he makes another error in reasoning that is accurately described in A. Just for argument's sake, say we imagine that the author had said "a society ought not to allow any of its explicit rules to routinely be broken with impunity." Wouldn't this still be an incorrect argument? Because he is assuming that in order to not get chaos, a society should not routinely allow any of its explicit rules to go unpunished. To me, this sounds like a mistaken negation, which is described in A.

violation routinely unpunished ~moral guidance chaos
~violation routinely unpunished moral guidance ~chaos

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi est15,

I see your point; however, a conclusion of the type you describe does not necessarily commit a Mistaken Negation. Let's simplify the argument even further:

If rules are broken, chaos results.
Therefore, rules should never be broken.

This conclusion simply forbids the occurrence of a condition that would be otherwise sufficient to cause chaos. There is nothing wrong with that. The author never says that compliance with the rules will necessarily prevent chaos, which would be a Mistaken Negation.

Does that make sense?

[est15]

Hi Nikki,

Thank you for your explanation. I think I'm confused about why the author chooses to negate the first line. Because if the conclusion of the passage were "a society ought not to routinely allow any of its explicit rules to be be broken with impunity" (negation of the first line), chaos may or may not still occur. So that negation doesn't really help us eliminate the possibility of chaos. What is the "purpose" of negating the first line then? Thanks.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi est15,

The author never suggested that the course of action he recommends will necessarily prevent chaos. You're correct: chaos may or may not still occur, even if the rules aren't broken. However, the conclusion simply removes one (of many) sufficient conditions that would cause chaos. There is nothing wrong with that line of reasoning per se.

Let's take another example:

"If you smoke, you will get cancer. So, you shouldn't smoke."

My conclusion tells you not to do something that is sure to have an undesirable effect, but I make no guarantees as to whether or not you will get cancer. Nobody can. This is a perfectly valid argument.

Compare this to the following argument:

If you smoke, you will get cancer. So, to avoid getting cancer, you should not smoke.

Here, we have a Mistaken Negation, because I'm assuming that smoking is not simply sufficient to cause cancer, but necessary for it.

Does this make sense?

Thanks!

[cecilia]

I was down to D and E, and incorrectly picked E. This often happens when I'm down to the two most eligible answers...Can anyone help further refine the questions I should be asking myself in order to get to the correct answer for this type of question? I am still having trouble ruling out why E is wrong, though I see how D is correct.

Thank you in advance.

[ChicaRosa]

I'm having a hard time trying to understand why D is correct? How does it exactly confuse routine nonpunishment with sometimes not punishing?

I chose B because I thought it was trying to attack the stimulus about not breaking rules but now I can see that it doesn't make any sense since the stimulus is talking about enforcing rules.

Is my line of reasoning correct?

Thanks !

[Francis O'Rourke]

The stimulus tells us that if we routinely fail to punish violations of explicit rules, then chaos will result: routinely failing to punish violations causes a lack of moral guidance, and a lack of moral guidance will result in chaos.

From this premise the author says that we must never let any violation go unpunished. This speaker obviously is confusing routinely with any. Choice (D) simply rephrases any with sometimes.

[mN2mmvf]

I'm also confused about (D). Doesn't "with impunity" imply a certain routine to lack of punishment? Otherwise, why didn't the sentence just say, "Thus a society ought never to allow any of its explicit rules to be broken?"

[AthenaDalton]

Hi mN2,

Thanks for your question!

"With impunity" doesn't necessarily imply that lawbreaking is routinely tolerated. The word "impunity" means exemption from punishment or freedom from the consequences of an action. So when someone commits a crime with impunity, it is accurate to say they're getting away with it. But that's not the same thing as routinely allowing all criminals to go free.

The argument in the stimulus starts out by saying that allowing violations of society's rules to go unpunished routinely will lead to ill consequences, then concludes by saying that a society should never allow its rules to be broken without punishment.

You do have a good point that the last sentence is a bit repetitive. However, I think it's fair to interpret it differently from the first sentence since it uses the word "never." This implies a zero-tolerance policy, which is distinct from the warning against "routinely" tolerating violations of societal rules outlined at the beginning of the argument.

I hope this clarifies things. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[Tuothekhazar]

Hi mN2,

Thanks for your question!

"With impunity" doesn't necessarily imply that lawbreaking is routinely tolerated. The word "impunity" means exemption from punishment or freedom from the consequences of an action. So when someone commits a crime with impunity, it is accurate to say they're getting away with it. But that's not the same thing as routinely allowing all criminals to go free.

The argument in the stimulus starts out by saying that allowing violations of society's rules to go unpunished routinely will lead to ill consequences, then concludes by saying that a society should never allow its rules to be broken without punishment.

You do have a good point that the last sentence is a bit repetitive. However, I think it's fair to interpret it differently from the first sentence since it uses the word "never." This implies a zero-tolerance policy, which is distinct from the warning against "routinely" tolerating violations of societal rules outlined at the beginning of the argument.

I hope this clarifies things. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

Please allow me to raise a question regarding the definition of " routinely " .


Apparently the flaw of the question lies in the fact that the conclusion attempts to wrongly eliminate the sufficient condition to ensure the necessary condition would not happened by equating 2 seems similar but actually different concepts of the sufficient conditions.

1. " Not routinely unpunished " vs " Never unpunished "

However, based on the definition of " routinely " in the Cambridge dictionary, we know routinely = used for describing what often or usually happens.

As a result, we can say that the phrase of " not routinely " could be equated as " not often " or " not usually " .

If above is true, then can we say the reason why answer D is correct is because that often and usually means the tendency, and the the word of sometime does not carry the definition of tendency ?