PrepTest 71, Section 2, Question 21
Lawyer: If you take something that you have good reason to think is someone else's property, that is stealing, and stealing is wrong. However, Meyers had no good reason to think that the compost in the public garden was anyone else's property, so it was not wrong for Meyers to take it.
Lawyer: If you take something that you have good reason to think is someone else's property, that is stealing, and stealing is wrong. However, Meyers had no good reason to think that the compost in the public garden was anyone else's property, so it was not wrong for Meyers to take it.
Lawyer: If you take something that you have good reason to think is someone else's property, that is stealing, and stealing is wrong. However, Meyers had no good reason to think that the compost in the public garden was anyone else's property, so it was not wrong for Meyers to take it.
Lawyer: If you take something that you have good reason to think is someone else's property, that is stealing, and stealing is wrong. However, Meyers had no good reason to think that the compost in the public garden was anyone else's property, so it was not wrong for Meyers to take it.
The reasoning in the lawyer's argument is flawed in that the argument
confuses a factual claim with a moral judgment
takes for granted that Meyers would not have taken the compost if he had good reason to believe that it was someone else's property
takes a condition that by itself is enough to make an action wrong to also be necessary in order for the action to be wrong
fails to consider the possibility that the compost was Meyers' property
concludes that something is certainly someone else's property when there is merely good, but not conclusive, reason to think that it is someone else's property
0 Comments