#25 - The publisher of a best selling self help book had, in

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I totally messed up with the logic sequence. And I don't know why (A) fits.
Thanks for your patience!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I totally messed up with the logic sequence. And I don't know why (A) fits.
Thanks for your patience!

Hello,

If, truly, "everyone knows that no book can deliver to the many what, by definition, must remain limited to the few: exceptional success", then that works with "Knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if it is reasonable for people to accept the claim as true", as A says. If everyone knows the book can't deliver, how can it be reasonable for them to believe that it CAN deliver?

David

[Johnclem]

Hi ,
Are both of these diagrams correct for the conclusion of this question since it has the double negative language ?

--> should not be considered unethical
--> should be considered ethical


Thanks
John

[Jonathan Evans]

John,

In general, I would say certainly, and even here I'd say that's fine. However, now we must consider semantics, and I would posit that "not unethical" does not necessarily imply that something be "ethical." While I am no expert at ethics, there does seem to exist an ethical spectrum, so I would be somewhat careful with going from one extreme to the other with such terms.

Consider a somewhat analogous case:

"should not be considered harmful" does not imply "should be considered beneficial"

I would suggest that the difference between "unethical" and "ethical" might be closer to these polar opposites (not logical opposites).

I don't know if you'd find yourself in hot water too often because of something like this, but if at all possible stick with the plain meanings of words and avoid unnecessary sources of error.

[Yining Bei]

Could someone please explain the difference between A and D and why A is a better answer than D?

I chose D over A because I thought the wording "reasonable" in A wasn't very appropriate (since the stimulus said nothing about a claim being reasonable). Plus since the stimulus said "EVERYONE knows that no book can deliver...", the wording in answer choice D "only if there is a possibility that someone will act ..." seems very appropriate to me.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, Yining. As to why "reasonable" is okay here, see the explanation above - if everyone knows something is true, then nobody reasonable would believe it to be untrue. It would be unreasonable to believe something that you know to be false, right?

The problem with answer D is that it is too extreme. Is it possible that just one person might act as if the claim was true, even if they know it to be false? Sure! That person could be unreasonable! In this situation, even though everyone knows that the claim is false, it is still possible that someone might act as if it's true, and if that's so then applying the rule in answer D would mean that making the claim could still be unethical.

I hope that clears things up for you!

[Yining Bei]

Thanks so much Adam for coming to help!

Now I see what is going on! For D, it is one thing to believe the claim is true, but it is another to act out as if it was true despite the belief that the claim is not true.

[bonnie_a]

Can someone explain why answer choice C can't strengthen the argument? If everyone knows that no book can deliver such information, why would there ever be someone who accepts the claim as true and thus suffers a hardship? I thought this case wasn't relevant to the situation from the stimulus.

[Robert Carroll]

bonnie_a,

The stimulus establishes that "everyone knows" no book can deliver what that book is promising. That's not quite saying that no one will accept the claim, but saying something a bit weaker - everyone has knowledge that should, if they really think about it, prove that that claim is impossible. But if people don't think through the consequences of their beliefs, they might not recognize that the claim of the book is impossible. So, while it's not reasonable to believe the book, because that belief contradicts a belief everyone already has, it's going too far to say that no one will believe the book. People sometimes don't realize that their decisions don't make sense given the state of their knowledge. So, there is a possibility someone will believe the claim and suffer harm. Thus, answer choice (C)'s necessary condition might be true in some situations, so we can't use its contrapositive to help the conclusion.

Robert Carroll