Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardPrinciple - Justify

Match each institutional decision-making scenario with the universal principle that, if assumed to be true, most helps to justify its conclusion.

  • A hospital board decides to fund research into a rare genetic disease rather than a common lifestyle-induced disease, even though both research programs cost the same. The board concludes this funding decision is morally correct.An institution acts morally when it directs its discretionary resources toward addressing conditions that arise through no fault of the affected parties, rather than conditions arising from voluntary behaviors.
  • A corporation chooses to award its limited bonus pool to a department that achieved its goals despite unforeseen supply chain failures, rather than a department that achieved its goals under normal conditions. The executive team concludes this distribution is equitable.A distribution of rewards within an organization is equitable if it favors those who achieve success in the face of unpredictable external obstacles over those who achieve success without facing such obstacles.
  • A judge imposes a lighter sentence on a defendant who embezzled funds to pay for emergency medical bills than on a defendant who embezzled the same amount for personal enrichment. The judge reasons that this disparity in sentencing is just.A disparity in the severity of legal sanctions for identical offenses is just if the lighter sanction is imposed on an offender whose actions were motivated by existential necessity.
  • A city council forgives the late tax penalties of a business that was forcibly closed by a natural disaster, while enforcing the penalties against a business that simply forgot to file. The council determines this disparate treatment is fair.It is fair for a governing body to waive standard punitive measures for noncompliance if the noncompliance was directly caused by an unavoidable external catastrophe.

Answer

Scenario 1 pairs with the principle prioritizing resources for no-fault conditions. Scenario 2 pairs with the principle favoring rewards for overcoming external obstacles. Scenario 3 pairs with the principle allowing sanction disparities for existential necessity. Scenario 4 pairs with the principle allowing waivers for noncompliance caused by external catastrophes.
Each correct pairing successfully matches a scenario containing a logical gap between its factual premises and its normative conclusion with a universal conditional principle that serves as a sufficient premise to bridge that exact gap.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conclusion and the supporting premises for the first scenario.
The conclusion asserts the moral correctness of funding genetic disease research over lifestyle-induced disease research. The premises distinguish the diseases by their causes: unpreventable versus voluntary.
Identifying the logical gap between the factual premises and the normative conclusion is required to find the bridging principle.
2
Select the principle that logically guarantees the conclusion for the first scenario.
The principle stating that an institution acts morally when directing resources to address conditions arising through no fault of the affected parties perfectly bridges the gap.
This principle acts as a sufficient premise that strictly entails the moral correctness of the board's decision.
3
Examine the second scenario to identify its core normative claim.
The conclusion is that awarding bonuses to the department facing supply chain failures is equitable, justified by the presence of unforeseen external difficulties.
To formally justify an equitable distribution, a principle must explicitly validate overcoming unforeseen difficulties as a sufficient condition for equity.
4
Select the principle that justifies the second scenario's conclusion.
The principle asserting that a reward distribution is equitable if it favors those who succeed despite unpredictable external obstacles provides the necessary logical bridge.
It explicitly connects the factual condition (unforeseen failures) to the normative judgment (equitable distribution).
5
Analyze the third scenario's judicial decision.
The judge concludes the disparate sentencing is just because one crime was motivated by emergency medical bills (necessity) and the other by personal enrichment.
The appropriate principle must establish that a disparity in sentencing is just if motivated by such necessity.
6
Select the principle justifying the third scenario.
The principle stating that a disparity in sanction severity is just if the lighter sanction is imposed for an offense motivated by existential necessity secures the judge's reasoning.
Emergency medical bills represent existential necessity, fulfilling the sufficient condition established by the principle.
7
Analyze the fourth scenario's administrative decision.
The council concludes it is fair to forgive tax penalties for a business closed by a natural disaster, but not for one that simply forgot to file.
The justifying principle must permit waiving penalties as fair specifically when noncompliance is due to uncontrollable external events.
8
Select the corresponding principle for the fourth scenario.
The principle stating it is fair to waive punitive measures if noncompliance was caused by an unavoidable external catastrophe completes the argument.
A natural disaster perfectly aligns with the concept of an unavoidable external catastrophe, triggering the sufficient condition for fairness.

Key Concept

Identifying sufficient bridging principles that logically connect factual premises to normative or declarative conclusions.
Rate this question

Topics

Principle - Justify

More questions from this topic