#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.