#2 - Campaign manager: In campaign speeches, our candidate

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Kennedv_]

Hi,

I was between A and D and ended up picking D because I don't quite understand what "good consequences" means.

Can you please clarify A and D.

Thanks in advance.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Kennedv_!

This is another Strengthen-Principle question! So let's break it down:

Our campaign manager's conclusion is his first sentence.

C: Our candidate is justified in not revealing all the unpleasant consequences of the policies he endorses.

Why is he justified in doing this?

P: If he is fully candid, he will not get elected.

P: It's important that our candidate is elected so he has the chance to implement his positive political agenda

Again, we're being asked for a principle that will strengthen this argument. That means we want a principle that strengthens the link between getting elected to implement a positive agenda as justification for being less than candid about unpleasant consequences of his policies. Essentially, this argument sounds like that controversial adage "the ends justify the means."

Answer choice (A) strengthens this argument by telling us that ethically questionable acts (in this case, not revealing the unpleasant consequences of his policies) can be justified by good consequences (being elected so he can implement his positive political agenda).

Answer choice (D), on the other hand, just says that it's possible to accomplish your agenda even if you aren't trusted. Remember the conclusion we're trying to strengthen. We're trying to strengthen the idea that the candidate is justified in not revealing unpleasant consequences of his policies. Answer choice (D) doesn't help out that argument. All it tell us is that it's possible that he can accomplish his agenda while not being trusted, but it doesn't tell us that he is justified in holding back information.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey