- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B).
The argument here takes place in stages, with a premise, an intermediate conclusion, and a main conclusion, as follows (vastly simplified):
Premise: there's a moral duty to protect your family
Sub Conclusion: if falsely accused, there is a moral duty to hide a family member from police
Conclusion: sometimes it's morally right to obstruct police
We are asked to identify a flaw in this argument, and it should be somewhat apparent that the author has failed to consider that morals are complex things, and that some moral duties might be outweighed by other moral duties. We may have a moral duty to behave in a certain way, but that does not necessarily mean that everything about fulfilling that duty is morally right!
Answer choice (A): No broad generalization is drawn from the example given of a falsely accused family member. The conclusion drawn is not that it is always morally right to obstruct the police, but only that it sometimes may be. That's a fairly narrow conclusion, not a "broad generalization."
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Matching our prephrase, this answer points out a crucial idea overlooked by the author. Failing to consider that other moral obligations may apply is a serious problem with this argument.
Answer choice (C): An opposite answer, the author actually appears to assume that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person would constitute an injustice! Also, the argument never really gets to the idea of "justice," but is only about obstructing the police in "their work." Maybe the author doesn't even think that police work is about justice?
Answer choice (D): A very attractive answer choice, but the author may be fine with the idea that there is some moral obligation to obey the law. He just thinks that the duty to protect a family member from harm outweighs any such duty of obedience.
Answer choice (E): The author does not take for granted that the parents in the example are correct in their beliefs, because the example is about cases where the parents know that the child has been falsely accused. That use of "known" means that they are correct, and the child in the example has, in fact, been falsely accused. Thus, this answer describes something that did not happen in the argument.