Q7 - Mike: Tom did not tell me that I could use his computer

[isaac.botier]

Q7. (D)
Question Type: Principle Support (Assumption Family)

Since we’re in the Assumption Family we should start by identifying the conclusion. The conclusion for this prompt is that it would not be wrong for Mike to use Tom’s computer. If you were having trouble identifying the conclusion, you could’ve looked for the portion of the prompt where an opinion is stated. The two other pieces of information _ "Tom did not tell me that I could use his computer" and "Last week Tom used Mary’s bicycle even though..." are both facts that are used to support Mike’s conclusion.

So we have a two-premise core that looks like this:

Tom didn’t give Mike permission to use his computer + Tom used Mary’s bicycle without her permission -> It’s OK for Mike to use Tom’s computer without his permission

Before we consider our answer choices we should take a few seconds to consider the gap in our core. Mike is saying that it’s not wrong to use Tom’s computer without his permission because Tom did the same exact thing with Mary’s bike. There’s a big gap in the core here. This argument would be somewhat similar to me saying that it wouldn’t be wrong for me to punch my friend in the face (without his permission) because I saw him punch someone else in the face last week (without permission). The correct answer will provide us with a principle that tells us it’s ok to do something to someone (Mike using Tom’s computer without permission) as long as that same person (Tom) has done the same thing to someone else (using Mary’s bicycle without her permission).

(A) is out of scope. The core is not about whether or not using others’ possessions without their permission is theft but rather whether it is wrong. This answer choice might seem appealing because if it isn’t theft to use others possessions without their permission then maybe it isn’t wrong. But just because an action is not considered to be a theft doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong for other reasons. Furthermore, this principle has no connection to the premise.

(B) is also out of scope. Our core doesn’t say anything about telling the truth.

(C) is wrong because it doesn’t match up with our core. In the second premise we listed above Tom used Mary’s property, not Mike’s property. If the second premise was changed to "Tom used Mike’s Property without his permission," then (C) would be the right answer.

(E) is problematic for two reasons. First of all, we need a principle that tells us it isn’t wrong to use another person’s property. Also, we have no mention of whether anyone was harmed by the use.

--

That leaves (D) which allows us to bridge the gap between Tom using Mary’s bicycle without her permission and it not being wrong for Mike to use Tom’s computer without his permission. If it’s permissible to treat people in a way that’s similar to the way they have treated others, then Mike should be allowed to use Tom’s computer without permission because Tom treated Mary the same way.