Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardIdentifying Sufficient Assumptions

According to classical utilitarian ethics, an action is morally praiseworthy only if it involves a significant personal sacrifice on the part of the actor. Thus, Mayor Thompson's recent decision to donate his entire annual salary to the local hospital cannot be considered morally praiseworthy. Even though the hospital desperately needs the funds, this highly publicized donation will substantially increase the mayor's chances of winning the fiercely contested upcoming election.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. No action that substantially increases an actor's chances of winning an election involves a significant personal sacrifice.Answer
  2. B
    Any action that involves a significant personal sacrifice is morally praiseworthy.
  3. C
    A philanthropic donation does not qualify as a significant personal sacrifice if the recipient institution is heavily reliant on public funding.
  4. D
    Mayor Thompson would not have donated his salary to the hospital if he did not believe it would help his reelection campaign.
  5. E
    If an action is not morally praiseworthy, it is usually because the actor is motivated by self-interest, such as winning an election.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that no action substantially increasing an actor's chances of winning an election involves a significant personal sacrifice.
The argument relies on conditional logic. Premise 1 states: Morally Praiseworthy -> Significant Personal Sacrifice. The contrapositive is: No Significant Personal Sacrifice -> Not Morally Praiseworthy. The author concludes that the mayor's donation is not morally praiseworthy based on the premise that it increases his election chances. To logically guarantee this conclusion, we must link the evidence to the contrapositive's sufficient condition. The correct answer provides this exact link: if an action increases election chances, it involves no significant personal sacrifice. This completes the chain: Increases Election Chances -> No Significant Personal Sacrifice -> Not Morally Praiseworthy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion.
Mayor Thompson's donation is not morally praiseworthy.
This is the core claim the author is trying to prove, signaled by the word 'Thus'.
2
Deconstruct the premises and their formal logic.
Premise 1: Morally Praiseworthy -> Significant Personal Sacrifice. Premise 2: Thompson's Donation -> Increases Election Chances.
Mapping the conditional logic is required to identify the exact gap in the argument.
3
Determine the required missing link (Sufficient Assumption).
To prove the donation is NOT morally praiseworthy, we must prove it lacks significant personal sacrifice (the contrapositive of Premise 1). We know the donation increases election chances. Therefore, we must assume: Increases Election Chances -> NO Significant Personal Sacrifice.
A sufficient assumption must perfectly bridge the gap between the evidence (election chances) and the requirement to trigger the conclusion (no sacrifice).

Key Concept

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions

More questions from this topic