2024 T2W2 CBA - Purpose of Source, Harm Principle, Paternalism, Argument Analysis Flashcards
How to answer Source-based Question on Purpose of Source? What is the acronym?
When responding to a SBQ on Purpose of source, your response should address the following areas and questions:
Provenance (Author, Context):
Who is the author of the source? What is the context in which the source is published?
Audience:
Who is the intended audience of the source? Which segment of the population may be the intended audience?
What may be the intended audience’s interests, concerns, needs that are related to the issue in the source? Be as precise as possible.
Main idea to be inferred from the source:
What can you infer to be the main idea(s) that the author of the source wants to convey to the intended audience?
Evidence from source:
How does the evidence/ information from the source support your inference about the main idea(s) of the source?
Outcome/Purpose:
What change in audience thinking, behaviour does the author hope to bring about through the source?
What action(s) does the author hope for the audience to take after viewing the source?
Acronym to help you recall: PAMEO
How to answer Source-based Question on Harm Principle? What is the acronym?
When applying Mill’s Harm Principle to determine whether interference with one’s liberty to act is justified, your response should have the following:
Claim:
- A clear claim at the start to explain whether interference with one’s liberty to act is justified or not in the case of the source
Criteria:
- A clear explanation of the Harm Principle’s criteria for determining if interference with one’s liberty to act is justified:
According to the Harm Principle, it is justified to intervene in someone’s liberty if their actions
I) are other-regarding, and ii) cause harm in the process.
Self or other-regarding nature of act
-> Self or other-regarding nature of act
Self-regarding actions are actions that only harm yourself or, if it also harms others (rational adults), it does so with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. Other-regarding actions are those that harm others who are not rational, free, undeceived, consenting adults.
-> Whether there is harm inflicted and on which party/ parties
-> (IF APPLICABLE TO INFO IN THE SOURCE) Exceptions in which it is always justified to intervene
Application:
Use of source information to explain:
- How the act that is interfered with is self-regarding or other-regarding
- Whether there is harm caused by the act; if there is harm inflicted, state which party is harmed and explain how they are harmed by the act.
- Concluding from the above explanation on whether interference with one’s liberty to act is justified or not based on Harm Principle.
Acronym to help you recall: CCA
How to answer Source-based Question on Paternalism? What is the acronym?
When explaining whether an act is paternalistic or not, your response should have the following:
Claim:
A clear claim stating whether the act in the source is paternalistic or not
Criteria:
A clear explanation of the criteria by which an act is considered paternalistic:
- There is an interference with a person’s liberty to act
- The interference with one’s liberty to act is for the good of the person(s) whose liberty is interfered with.
- The “good” is as defined by the person or authority imposing the interference, and not by the person(s) whose liberty is interfered with.
Application: Use of source information to explain exactly how the three criteria above are fulfilled (or not):
- Whether there is interference with liberty and if so, state whose freedom is restricted and what act is prohibited
- If there is interference with liberty, explain whether:
-> the interference with liberty is for the good of the party whose liberty is interfered with
-> Whether the “good” is defined by the party or authority imposing the restriction, and not by the party whose freedom is restricted.
-> Specify the “good” defined by the party or authority imposing the restriction
-> Concluding from the above whether the act is paternalistic or not.
Acronym to help you recall: CCA
IMPORTANT - do apply the criteria IN ORDER! Often, mistakes are made when assessing criteria out of order or incompletely
The most common one being the assessment of something as paternalistic because the 2nd and 3rd criteria are seemingly fulfilled even though there is no actual restriction in place, or the action appears to be a restriction or isn’t one
Argument Analysis Question
Tips and reminders
Argument Analysis Question
Read a source and present the argument in Standard Form.
E.g. Present the argument in Source D in Standard Form, making sure to include the given premise below: “xxx”
Tips and reminders:
Look out for premise-indicators and conclusion-indicators to understand flow of the argument (which ideas are premises and which are conclusions)
e.g. ‘because’, ‘hence’, ‘therefore’ are very big hints that certain conclusions are being made from certain premises
The final conclusion often comes at the start or the end of the passage (or both), logically speaking. You know this naturally - it’s how effective communication works when we speak and write. We either start with our main point to give our audience context for all our points we present later, or we end with our main point to show what we’ve been building up to. Nonetheless, you should always ask yourselves the following questions as you read and analyse an argumentative piece:
What is the conclusion that the author is trying to convince me to accept?
What are the reasons or premises that the author gives to support the conclusion of the argument?
INCLUDE THE GIVEN PREMISE. Use it. It’s a starting point to figure out all the other premises and conclusions.
If the argument has intermediate conclusions, make sure that they are labeled as premises and used for subsequent intermediate conclusions or final conclusion - otherwise the flow of logic is broken and you are likely to end up with separate arguments rather than ONE complex argument.
If the premise is precise, provide that level of precision. If the premise is imprecise (e.g. ‘this misery’), paraphrase the words to point out what those premises are actually referring to
Remember that examples and case studies are not supposed to be part of premises. Premises are claims, and examples/case studies are meant to illustrate these claims.
Marking considerations
For Standard Form convention errors, each TYPE of error will lead to a 0.5 mark deduction.
If a complex argument is presented in a way that the intermediate conclusion(s) do not link to the latter parts of the argument, only the premises leading up to that intermediate conclusion will be assessed (as there is no logical connection between what comes before and after).
The given premise is not counted as one of the premises to be identified, BUT if you don’t include it, the way you present the logic of the argument is DEFINITELY going to be inaccurate.
reminders:
Look out for premise-indicators and conclusion indicators in the passage to help you identify the premises, intermediate conclusions and final conclusion.
Leave out examples.
Remember the Standard Form conventions.
P1: … P2: … C1/P3: … (P1, P2) P4: … C2: … (P3, P4)
Check that you do not create any fallacies in the sub-arguments.
Check that all the intermediate conclusions are used in the derivation of the Final Conclusion so that it is ONE argument.
Try NOT TO USE pronouns / shortened terms (IS of Clarity/ Precision)
How to present answers in standard form?
Look out for premise-indicators and conclusion indicators in the passage to help you identify the premises, intermediate conclusions and final conclusion.
Leave out examples.
Remember the Standard Form conventions.
P1: … P2: … C1/P3: … (P1, P2) P4: … C2: … (P3, P4)
Check that you do not create any fallacies in the sub-arguments.
Check that all the intermediate conclusions are used in the derivation of the Final Conclusion so that it is ONE argument.
Try NOT TO USE pronouns / shortened terms (IS of Clarity/ Precision)
What is liberty?
Liberty is the ability to do as on pleases.
In modern politics, liberty is the state of being free within society from restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behaviour or political views.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behaviour, or political views.
the power or scope to act as one pleases.
smth like freedom and independence
Mill’s Harm Principle in a nutshell
When is interference with one’s liberty to act is justified? (2 points)
Interference with one’s liberty to act is justified ONLY if the act:
is other-regarding (i.e. affects the interests of another party directly)
causes harm
In the case of rational and competent adults, one’s (the rational competent adult’s) own good is not sufficient reason for interference with his or her liberty to act. If the act harms no one but oneself, interference with one’s liberty to carry out the act is not justified.
However, for children, individuals below legal age and individuals who require the care of others (e.g. adults with intellectual disabilities), interference with the liberty of the above groups of individuals for their own good is justified since they are deemed unable to fully rationalise their actions.
Conditions for an act to be considered paternalistic? (3)
paternalism: the policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest.
Three conditions for an act to be considered paternalistic:
There is a restriction of freedom to carry out an act even if the act causes no harm to anyone other than oneself.
The restriction of freedom is based on the good of the person(s) whose freedom is/are being restricted.
This “good” is defined by the person(s) or authority carrying out the restriction of freedom and not by the person(s) whose freedom is/are restricted.
Comparing the Harm Principle and Paternalism
Harm Principle
Interference with individual liberty to act is justified only if:
The act is other-regarding, and
Harms the interests of another party
OR
The interference is to prevent the individual who is not a rational competent adult from harming oneself (e.g. interfering with a toddler’s liberty to play with a pair of scissors to prevent the toddler from injuring himself)
Interference with individual liberty to act is NOT justified if:
The act is self-regarding and the individual is a rational competent adult
Comparing the Harm Principle and Paternalism
Paternalism
An act is paternalistic if the interference with liberty is justified on the grounds of the good of the individual whose liberty is interfered with regardless of whether the individual is a rational, competent adult.
There is a restriction of freedom to carry out an act even if the act causes no harm to anyone other than oneself.
The restriction of freedom is based on the good of the person(s) whose freedom is/are being restricted.
This “good” is defined by the person(s) or authority carrying out the restriction of freedom and not by the person(s) whose freedom is/are restricted.
Similarities between Harm Principle & Paternalism
Both are principles/concepts that apply to acts which interfere with the liberty of others.
Harm Principle
- Applied to evaluate if an interference is justified - is it valid for this interference in liberty to be imposed?
Paternalism
Applied to determine if an interference is paternalistic - is this interference in liberty paternalistic in nature?
Template ans for purpose of source qns:
Acronym: PAMEO
Provenance (Source - Author, Context):
The infographics were produced by (Author) in (where) to (context, what source is about, e.g. to communicate some aspects of the master plan for land transport pertaining to public transport)
Audience:
The intended audience are (who e.g. singaporean commuters who want a more efficient land transport system and infrastructure).
Main idea from source:
(Author) wants to convey the idea that (main idea from source, probably can find in source).
Evidence from Source:
(Main idea from source) is supported by the evidence (from source can copy paste).
Explain evidence from source. (if there is elaboration in source u just copy it)
Purpose/Outcome:
The purpose of the infographics is to address (what problem), and to (goal of infographics eg to encourage … etc).
Acronym to help you recall: PAMEO
Template ans for Harm Principle qns:
Acronym: CCA
Template ans for Harm Principle qns:
Claim:
Yes/No, the intervention with (who)’s actions is justified/not justified.
Criteria:
According to the Harm Principle, it is justified to intervene in someone’s liberty if their actions i) are other-regarding, and ii) cause harm in the process.
Exceptions (if applicable): However, it excludes children and people of unsound mind, as they are considered unable to rationalize their actions and consequences fully.
Application:
Based on the source, (who)’s actions are self/other regarding as (evidence + explain why). This could cause harm / does not cause harm as (evidence + explain why)
Thus, both/only one/none of the criterias of the Harm Principle are fulfilled and the intervention is justified/not justified.
Acronym to help you recall: CCA
Template ans for paternalism qns:
Claim:
Yes/No, (action) by (who implemented the action) is paternalistic/not paternalistic.
Concept:
An act is considered paternalistic if it fulfills the 3 conditions:
i) There is an interference with a person’s liberty to act
ii)The interference with one’s liberty to act is for the good of the person(s) whose liberty is interfered with, and
iii) The “good” is as defined by the person or authority imposing the interference, and not by the person(s) whose liberty is interfered with.
Application:
The first/second/third criteria is fulfilled/not fulfilled as (evidence + explain why).
The first criteria is fulfilled/not fulfilled because there is a restriction / not a restriction on freedom of (action that has been restricted).
The second criteria is fulfilled/not fulfilled as it is / it is not for the (party in which action is implemented for)’s own good as (why).
The third criteria is fulfilled/not fulfilled as (party who restricted action) is the party who is/is not restricting action and is/is not defining good in this instance.
Link: Thus, the restriction can/cannot be considered paternalistic.
Acronym to help you recall: CCA
