#27 - Concept Reference, Strengthen, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[15veries]

Hi

I'm weak at inference questions so just want to double check...
So C is right using info from line 15-18, and 27-30, right?

[quigleyest]

Any explanation for why E is wrong?

Is it because of the word often?

Even if the rights of potential employees often override monetary considerations, does this fact have no bearing on the author's position?


I was thinking that if the rights of potential employees often override monetary considerations, this supports the author's opinion for reasoning why the specific performance should not be sought

[Emily Haney-Caron]

15veries: Yep, you got it! Good analysis!

Quigleyest: Not because of the word often. Rather, the issue here with E is twofold. First, E does not, as you noted, have much of a bearing one way or the other. Second, E doesn't add anything new; it sort of gives the same ideas as in the argument (that our biggest concern should be the rights of the employees). Hope that helps!

[nrpandolfo]

Why is B wrong? If all remedies involve coercion, and courts shouldn't force coercion (line 40), then this would strengthen the authors argument that courts shouldn't use specific performance in employment contract cases

[James Finch]

Hi NRPandolfo,

The issues that the author only brings up coercion with regard to specific performance, and does so in the context of arguing against its use while favoring monetary compensation as a better remedy in breach of contract cases. So if (B) were true, we would then weaken the conclusion by no longer having coercion as a negative for specific performance and a presumed lack of coercion as a potential positive for monetary compensation; both would be equal in the sense that both would involve coercion.

Hope this clears things up!

[German.Steel]

I could use some clarification on (C).

The way I read P3 and the author's argument is that the argument is conditional upon monetary compensation being possible; therefore, I don't see how adding in that "monetary compensation is usually possible" strengthens the argument.

I'm looking especially at the following lines: "Even if a court had the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms, it would often do better to avoid imposing such uncomfortable conditions. Awarding monetary compensation where possible in such cases permits the court to steer clear..."

Help??? Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

German.Steel,

What you're pointing out is exactly why answer choice (C) helps the argument. As you say, the author's argument is conditional on monetary compensation being possible. If monetary compensation is not possible, then the argument doesn't work very well. So it helps the author to say "The condition upon which your argument relied was, after all, true."

The "conditional" nature of the argument could be expressed this way: "As long as monetary compensation is possible, it will be adequate compensation. So, monetary compensation is adequate compensation." I don't think diagramming this is necessary, but it certainly works:

Premise: $ possible $ adequate

Conclusion: $ adequate

Showing that the sufficient condition is true would thus make the necessary condition a good inference, which is precisely what we want.

Robert Carroll

[oliviab97]

Is it fair to say A would weaken the author's argument?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi oliviab97!

Yes, answer choice (A) seems to weaken it--it would probably weaken it more clearly if it referred to "monetary" compensation. The author finds monetary awards to be preferable to specific performance for the reasons set out in the passage. It would challenge this argument if monetary compensation awards were nearly impossible to enforce.