Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaSufficient Assumption

Legal theorist: A legal statute that infringes on personal privacy is morally defensible only if it demonstrably prevents a severe public harm. The recent Cybersecurity Act clearly infringes on personal privacy. Therefore, the recent Cybersecurity Act is not morally defensible.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the legal theorist's conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. A
    Any legal statute that infringes on personal privacy is morally defensible if it demonstrably prevents a severe public harm.
  2. B
    The recent Cybersecurity Act causes a severe public harm rather than demonstrably preventing one.
  3. C
    Most legal statutes that infringe on personal privacy do not demonstrably prevent a severe public harm.
  4. The recent Cybersecurity Act does not demonstrably prevent a severe public harm.Cevap
  5. E
    Any legal statute that does not infringe on personal privacy is morally defensible.

Cevap

The recent Cybersecurity Act does not demonstrably prevent a severe public harm.
The correct answer provides the exact logical trigger needed to complete the argument. The legal theorist states that preventing a severe public harm is a necessary condition for a privacy-infringing statute to be morally defensible. Because we already know the Cybersecurity Act infringes on privacy, proving that it fails to meet this single necessary condition definitively guarantees that it is not morally defensible.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional logic in the first premise.
Rule: If a statute infringes on privacy (IP) AND is morally defensible (MD), then it must prevent a severe public harm (PSH). Formally: (IP + MD) -> PSH.
Identifying the exact necessary and sufficient conditions is the first step in finding the deductive gap.
2
Identify the logical contrapositive of the established rule.
Contrapositive: If a statute does NOT prevent a severe public harm (~PSH), then it cannot be both privacy-infringing and morally defensible. Since it is already privacy-infringing, it must be NOT morally defensible (~MD).
The conclusion attempts to prove a negative (~MD). The contrapositive provides the pathway to prove that negative.
3
Evaluate the argument's provided facts against the contrapositive.
Fact: The Cybersecurity Act infringes on privacy (IP). Conclusion: The Act is not morally defensible (~MD).
This reveals the missing link. To trigger the contrapositive and force the ~MD conclusion, we must satisfy the ~PSH trigger condition.
4
Select the assumption that bridges the gap.
The necessary assumption to guarantee the conclusion is that the Cybersecurity Act does NOT prevent a severe public harm.
Assuming this definitively triggers the contrapositive chain, guaranteeing the conclusion with 100% logical certainty.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging a deductive gap by providing the sufficient condition to trigger a contrapositive argument structure.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Sufficient Assumption

Bu konudan daha fazla soru