Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTwo-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Valeria: The new directive mandating that all municipal employees commute via public transit is inherently unjust. A municipal policy is just only if it distributes its logistical burdens equally among all those directly affected. This directive disproportionately burdens employees living in suburban areas, where transit infrastructure is sparse.

Darius: I concede that the directive places a heavier logistical burden on suburban employees. However, justice in municipal governance does not demand the equal distribution of burdens among employees. Instead, a policy is just provided that its overall benefit to the city's residents outweighs the total logistical burdens it imposes. Thus, the directive is not unjust.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Valeria and Darius disagree over the truth of which one of the following statements?

  1. A municipal policy can be considered just even if it distributes its logistical burdens unequally among those directly affected.Answer
  2. B
    The new directive mandating public transit will generate overall benefits for the city's residents that outweigh its logistical burdens.
  3. C
    Public transit infrastructure in the suburbs can be improved enough to distribute the directive's logistical burdens equally.
  4. D
    An inherently unjust municipal directive should nevertheless be implemented if its benefits to the city outweigh its total burdens.
  5. E
    Most of the municipal employees affected by the new directive reside in suburban areas where transit is sparse.

Answer

The statement regarding whether a municipal policy can be considered just even if it distributes its logistical burdens unequally.
The correct answer accurately captures the core disagreement by focusing on the logical conditions for justice. Valeria relies on the principle that equal distribution is a necessary condition for justice; therefore, she would say 'no' to this statement. Darius explicitly denies this necessary condition, stating that 'justice in municipal governance does not demand the equal distribution of burdens,' and concludes that the unequal policy is indeed just; therefore, he would say 'yes' to this statement.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Valeria's argument structure and identifying principles.
Valeria's core principle is conditional: A policy is just ONLY IF it distributes burdens equally. Because this specific directive does not distribute burdens equally, she concludes it is unjust.
Isolating the first speaker's exact logical premise is necessary to establish her stance.
2
Analyze Darius's argument structure and identifying principles.
Darius agrees the burden is unequal. However, he rejects Valeria's principle, stating justice 'does not demand' equal distribution. He proposes a different sufficient condition: a policy is just PROVIDED THAT (if) benefits outweigh burdens.
Finding where the second speaker explicitly accepts or rejects the first speaker's premises reveals the exact point of contention.
3
Locate the intersection of their views to find the point at issue.
They agree on the factual premise that the directive burdens suburban employees unequally. They disagree on the philosophical principle: Valeria believes this inequality automatically makes the policy unjust (equal distribution is necessary), while Darius believes a policy can be unequal and still be just.
The correct answer must be a specific proposition that one speaker clearly affirms and the other clearly denies.

Key Concept

Identifying the Point at Issue by analyzing conflicting conditional reasoning principles in a dialogue.
Rate this question

Topics

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

More questions from this topic