22) Helen: It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room, the party was over. Saying something that is false can never been other than morally wrong, and there had been no such accident-- Mark had simply forgotten all about the party.
The justification Helen offers for her judgement of Mark's behavior is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that the justification
(A) ignores an important moral distinction between saying something that is false and failing to say something that one knows to be true (B) confuses having identified one cause of a given effect with having eliminated the possibility of there being any other causes of that effect (C) judges behavior that is outside an individual's control according to moral standards that can properly be applied only to behavior that is within such control (D) relies on an illegitimate appeal to pity to obscure the fact that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises advanced (E) attempts to justify an judgement about a particular case by citing a general principle that stands in far greater need of support than does that particular judgment.
correct answer is (E). I chose (B). I'm not sure if Helen's statements on "there had bee not such accident" and the only seemingly reason is "Mark had fogotten the party" are all true to the fact, or just Helen's subjective judgment. My reason for going with (B) is that: Mark could have been in an accident and forgotten the party at the same time. Therefore, there could be two causes of his not attending the party, and Helen's justification is vulnerable then.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-3-18 07:19:00
