Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardPrinciple Questions

Principle: An academic historian is professionally justified in publishing a controversial historical claim based on newly discovered, unauthenticated documents only if the claim challenges a prevailing consensus that was itself established without rigorous primary source documentation, and the historian explicitly acknowledges the unauthenticated status of these documents. Furthermore, even if the preceding conditions are satisfied, the historian is not justified unless the potential value of the new claim to historical discourse outweighs the risk of disseminating historical inaccuracies.

Which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the principle stated above?

  1. Dr. Morell published a controversial claim based on recently discovered, unauthenticated letters. Her claim challenged a prevailing consensus that lacked rigorous primary source backing, and she explicitly acknowledged the unauthenticated status of the letters. However, because the risk of spreading historical inaccuracies far outweighed the potential value of the claim to historical discourse, Morell was not professionally justified in publishing the claim.Answer
  2. B
    Dr. Kael published a controversial claim derived from newly discovered, unauthenticated diaries. Because Kael’s claim challenged a prevailing consensus established without rigorous primary documentation, Kael explicitly acknowledged the diaries were unauthenticated, and the claim's potential value to historical discourse outweighed the risk of disseminating inaccuracies, Kael was professionally justified in publishing the claim.
  3. C
    Dr. Sato published a controversial claim based on newly discovered, fully authenticated government archives. Although the claim challenged a consensus established without rigorous documentation and its value to historical discourse outweighed the risks, Sato failed to explicitly acknowledge the origin of the documents. Thus, Sato was not professionally justified in publishing the claim.
  4. D
    Dr. Hasting published a controversial claim based on unauthenticated financial ledgers and explicitly acknowledged their unauthenticated status. Because Hasting was subsequently deemed not professionally justified in publishing this claim, it must be true that the claim's potential risk of disseminating historical inaccuracies outweighed its value to historical discourse.
  5. E
    Dr. Omondi published a controversial claim based on newly discovered, unauthenticated documents. Although the claim challenged a consensus lacking rigorous primary documentation and its value outweighed the risks, Omondi failed to explicitly acknowledge the unauthenticated status of the documents. Consequently, Omondi is no longer professionally justified in publishing any controversial historical claims.

Answer

The judgment concluding that Dr. Morell was not professionally justified because the risk of spreading inaccuracies outweighed the value of the claim.
The correct answer perfectly applies the contrapositive of the final condition in the principle. The stimulus states that a historian is 'not justified unless' the potential value outweighs the risk. This translates to: If Justified -> Value > Risk. The contrapositive is: If Value < Risk -> Not Justified. Because the risk of spreading inaccuracies far outweighed the potential value in this scenario, Dr. Morell failed a necessary condition and was validly deemed not justified.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the logical structure of the principle in the stimulus.
The principle establishes three necessary conditions for an academic historian to be justified in publishing a claim based on unauthenticated documents.
Recognizing conditional indicators like 'only if' and 'not justified unless' is required to map the strict logic of the argument.
2
Map the specific necessary conditions.
Justified -> (1) Challenges unsupported consensus, AND (2) Acknowledges unauthenticated status, AND (3) Value outweighs risk.
Formalizing the logic prevents confusing necessary conditions with sufficient ones.
3
Determine what conclusions can be validly drawn from this structure.
We can only definitively conclude that a historian is NOT justified (if any of the three conditions fail). We can never conclude they ARE justified, because the principle provides no sufficient conditions.
This immediately rules out any option that concludes a historian is justified.
4
Evaluate the options against the valid logical deductions.
The correct option outlines a scenario where condition 3 fails (value did not outweigh risk), leading to the valid contrapositive conclusion that the historian was not justified.
This perfectly matches the formal logic of the stated principle.

Key Concept

Conditional Logic: Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions and Contrapositives
Rate this question

Topics

Principle Questions

More questions from this topic