June 2007 PrepTest, Section 3, Question 18
By Brandon Beaver | Published October 29, 2024
Type: Flaw
Difficulty:
Explanations
The jump here is from the first to the second sentence. The second sentence is an intermediate conclusion, so by questioning its truthfulness, you are not contradicting a premise (because it isn’t a premise).
The first sentence says that there’s a moral duty to prevent harm to family members. The second sentence tries to use that rule statement to justify hiding a falsely accused child. However, is hiding a falsely accused child from the police really preventing a family member from harm? It seems like obstructing justice would put the child in greater harm down the line!
A
No, the conclusion is that it is “sometimes” morally right. To prove that conclusion, only one example is needed.
B
Wow, tough one, but yes. There may be a moral duty to prevent harm to family members, but there may be an overriding moral duty to turn in the accused. In that case, then it is not morally right to hide the accused, even if you were truly saving them from harm.
C
That innocent person might not be your family member, so that doesn’t matter. Also, it isn’t about “assisting justice” at all.
D
This is similar to B, but different in one key way: This doesn’t say the moral obligation to obey the law is superior. Even if D is true, the editorialist could say, “Yeah, but the obligation to prevent harm to family members overrides the obligation to obey the law.”
E
Innocence is a complete red herring. It would be the same analysis (for the editorialist’s argument) if the child were guilty.
Passage
Editorialist: In all cultures, it is almost universally acc
Question 18
The reasoning in the editorialist's argument is most vulnera