#11 - A person who knowingly brings about misfortune should

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[ashnicng]

Why is C incorrect? Is it because "but he was concerned that it might" suggests that Gougon could have reasonably foreseen the misfortune? Thanks!!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ash,

Answer choice C reaches the conclusion that Gougon should be blamed in the event the sauce makes his guests ill. Thus, we can't rely on the second principle stated in the stimulus, because that principle only identifies circumstances under which an individual should not be blamed for bringing about a misfortune. To most justify the reasoning in answer choice C, we would need the first principle to be applicable, since it identifies the circumstances under which an individual should be blamed for bringing about a misfortune. That principle lets us conclude a person should be blamed when they "knowingly" bring about the misfortune. Gougon's bringing about the misfortune in answer choice C is not "knowing," because he has no reason to think the sauce will make guests ill, and he only has a suspicion that it might. For an outcome to be "knowing," one must have reason to believe the outcome will occur, and one must have more than just a suspicion that it might occur.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[fortunateking]

I have a problem with (D). (D) concludes by "no one other than Dr. Fitz is to blame for it", does this means
1. Dr. Fitz is to blame, which is wrong because Dr. Fitz "did not know ", or
2. other people are not to blame, which is wrong I guess because although other people did not knowingly did anything, but we don't know if they could not have reasonably foreseen it, ot
3. Dr. Fitz is to blame + other people are not to blame?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi fortunateking!

Your second interpretation seems to make the most sense of that last line of answer choice (D). Nothing in that language is directly stating that Dr. Fitzpatrick is to blame. At the same time, the language is saying that nobody else is to blame. Another way of saying that language could be: "If anyone is to blame, only Dr. Fitzpatrick is." That similarly excludes others but doesn't directly state that Dr. Fitzpatrick is to blame.