Legal Reasoning Exercises
This question asks you to know to what extent the political scientist`s reasoning is wrong. The argument bases its conclusion – that democracy does not promote political freedom – on two historical examples. The first set of examples shows that democracy is not enough for political freedom, and the second group shows that democracy is not necessary for political freedom. But it does not follow from these examples that democracy does not promote political freedom. Even if democracy alone is not enough for political freedom, it can nevertheless promote political freedom by contributing to it in most cases. Although democracy is not necessary for political freedom, it can still be true that democracy is something that promotes political freedom wherever it may be. Therefore, (D) is the correct answer. The principle mentioned in (B) requires wealthy institutions to use part of their resources to help those in need. This tends to confirm the moral imperative of pharmaceutical companies to deliver drugs to those who need them but cannot afford them. However, this principle does not support the journalist`s argument that the pricing policy of pharmaceutical companies is not justified by this moral imperative. This question asks you to find the answer that contains an erroneous pattern of reasoning that is most similar to the pattern contained in the argument in the passage. To do this, you need to understand the erroneous pattern in the reasoning of the passage. Then select the answer that has the most similar wrong pattern.
Facts: Bollywood actor-turned-producer Balwan Khan makes `MAA ONE` movie, he takes loans from a lender M. Danjay Sutt, the film comes out and as expected is a flop, the producer could not return the money, Danjay Sutt does not go through the legal route, but asks Kancha Cheena to collect the debt on his behalf. During the rescue, Kancha Cheena damaged the property and treated Balwan Khan. Balwan Khan takes legal action against Danjay Sutt. The lender says he didn`t know Kancha Cheena`s collection tactics, is he responsible for the case? Answer (B) is incorrect. The argument ignores whether a substantial increase in the level of political freedom would lead to a more democratic society, but this does not constitute an error of reasoning. The veracity of the claim that more political freedom leads to greater democratization would not in itself undermine the political scientist`s conclusion that democracies do not promote political freedom. Nor does this statement affect the premises of the memoirs, which deal with the effects of democracy on political freedom and not with the effects of political freedom on democracy. This question asks you what the leader`s reasoning is. The ads discussed by the executive appeared in two places – in a magazine and on the magazine`s website. Some information is available on the impact of website advertisements on consumers, but no information about consumer responses is available on print ads.
The executive`s remarks suggest that the ads that appeared in print media and on the website were essentially the same or very similar. The executive argued that information about the impact of advertisements on the website could be used as evidence to draw a conclusion on how print advertisements were likely to have performed. So the executive used the analogy between print ads and website ads to infer something about print ads. (D) is therefore the correct answer. The principle mentioned in answer (A) applies to the balancing of the consideration earned by sick and healthy people. However, the practice of pharmaceutical companies and the journalist`s argument against this practice only concern sick people (i.e. people who need medicines). Therefore, answer (A) is not relevant to the journalist`s argument. a) Affray (b) Unlawful gratuity (c) Corruption (d) Undue influence Which of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist`s argument? One.
Yes, because the contract provides for the sale of illegal drugs. Which of the following contains an erroneous reasoning pattern that is most similar to that of the above argument? The principle mentioned in answer (C) is related to the question of whether personal and non-social needs deserve special attention. The practice of pharmaceutical companies provides for special attention based on the characteristics of their own business and not on personal needs. Accordingly, practice under this principle tends to show special consideration for some who deserve it (the poorest citizens of richer nations), while special attention is paid to some who do not (middle-class citizens of poorer nations). In this way, the practice is not in line with the obligation of pharmaceutical companies to pay special attention to those who need drugs most and cannot afford them, and not to generate revenue through the undeserved special consideration that could have been used to support research into new drugs. The principle set out in point (C) therefore strongly supports the journalist`s argument that the practice of pharmaceutical companies is unjustified. Therefore, (C) is the correct answer. Answer (A) is incorrect. The executive`s conclusion on the likely reaction of consumers to print advertisements is not a prediction, but a judgment on events that have already occurred.
Moreover, the executive`s conclusion is not based on an argument about the cause of the consumer`s reaction to print advertising. The journalist notes that pharmaceutical companies need both profits to support future research and a moral obligation to provide drugs to those who need them most and cannot afford them. To compensate for these demands, they have adopted a practice of selling medicines at lower prices in poorer countries.