ncprasad wrote:
buckkitty wrote:
Please provide explanations behind your answers.
If an act of civil disobedience—willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reform—is done out of self-interest alone and not out of a concern for others, it cannot be justified. But one is justified in performing an act of civil disobedience if one’s conscience requires one to do so.
Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principles stated above?
(A) Keisha’s protest against what she perceived to be a brutal and repressive dictatorship in another country was an act of justified civil disobedience, because in organizing an illegal but peaceful demonstration calling for a return to democratic leadership in that country, she acted purely out of concern for the people of that country.
(B) Janice’s protest against a law that forbade labor strikes was motivated solely by a desire to help local mine workers obtain fair wages. But her conscience did not require her to protest this law, so Janice didn’t perform an act of justified civil disobedience.
(C) In organizing an illegal protest against the practice in her country of having prison inmates work eighteen hours per day, Georgette performed an act of justified civil disobedience: though she acted out of concern for her fellow inmates rather than out of concern for herself.
(D) Maria’s deliberate violation of a law requiring prepublication government approval of all printed materials was an act of justified civil disobedience: though her interest as an owner of a publishing company would be served by repeal of the law, she violated the law because her conscience required doing so on behalf of all publishers.
(E) In organizing a parade of motorcyclists riding without helmets through the capital city, Louise’s act was not one of justified civil disobedience: she was willfully challenging a specific law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, but her conscience did not require her to organize the parade.
Good CR!
To conform to the argument, the anwer must establish that
1. A specific law was broken.
2. It was broken to bring about legal reform
3. Done not solely based on self-interest.
4. Required by one's conscience to do so.
The key to cracking this CR is to understand the following portion of the argument.
willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reformIMHO, this indicates that a specific law must be broken to bring about legal reform of the law that is broken(in order to most closely conform to the argument).
Only D and E meet this criterion. E does not meet criterion no.4. So, I will stick my neck out and say D.
are you refuting B solely because it does not conform to:
willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reform
??
I saw the key to the question being the If x then y logic.
From the stem we only know:
If acting in self interest and not out of concern for others, then not justified
But,
If conscience requires it, then justified.
So, for instance we cannot deduce that:
If conscience does NOT require it, then NOT justified
And so on…