#25 - Must Be True, Purpose

[Adam Tyson]

lsatquestions, I think those are good, concise reasons for eliminating those answers, although I might quibble with the claim that the author, or someone else, thinks those exceptions should not be covered. It seems to be the opposite - the author is saying "if you are going to exclude sacramental confessions, shouldn't you exclude this other stuff for the same reason? Why not, Bentham?"

Mazen, those are good reasons, too, although I don't think the problem with "objection" was that it was too strong, but that it was inaccurate. The author is raising this question, but there is no indication that anyone else did so previously, so these are not examples of objections "that were raised" at any time. They are just examples of things the author thinks should probably have been included if one were to accept Bentham's reasoning regarding other exclusions.

[mab9178]

Adam,

Thank you for helping me gain a clear-eyed assessment of the grounds for eliminating B.

"Too strong" is not the same as "inaccurate." I see it: Bentham admits to the legitimacy of one example - the exception of sacramental confessions to Bentham's non-exclusion principle because it undermines trust, so the author adds another example that is in the same mold in terms of undermining trust in social workers.

B states that the author mentions lines 49-50 in order "cite an example of objections that were raised to Bentham's proposed reform."

Well, the lines in question are not an example of an objection but rather an example of an exception qualified as such on the grounds of its similitude to the sacramental confessions example - having competing social interests - that Bentham admit as legitimate grounds for exception.

In sum, there's no objection made by the author, but rather an addendum of a similarly situated scenario/exception.

Zooming out of this particular question, to highlight a broader struggle that has been conflicting me and costing me time: I have been having hard time drawing a line between what knowledge of mine I can/should add and which I should not.
As an example of this larger challenge, the possible (I say possible instead of probable because the author uses "might" in the passage) harm to sacramental confessions has two related implications: the idea of priests doing some work of value to the social interest being predicated on the necessary assumption that a no-exception to the non-exclusionary rule would undermine the trust between a priest and a church congregate, which in turn might harm the social interest.

Thank You Adam
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like you got it! And as to bringing in outside knowledge, the general rule is "don't."