P1. Pornography can cause harm.
C. We should ban pornography.

Which premises can we add (individually) that would make the argument valid:

Question

P1. Pornography can cause harm.
C. We should ban pornography.

Which premises can we add (individually) that would make the argument valid:

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The prompt asks which premises, added individually, would render the argument valid given the stated conclusion about pornography.
Option 1: 'if x can cause harm, x should be banned.' If we add this as a general rule, then from the concrete fact 'Pornography can cause harm,' we can apply the rule to conclude 'Pornography should be banned.' This aligns with a straightforward modus ponens structure: premises include 'X can cause harm' and 'If X can cause harm, then X should be banned,' therefore 'X should be banned.' This premise is a valid general principle that directly supports the conclusion when the target is the thing that can cause harm.
Option 2: 'Everything that can cause harm should be banned.' This is a broad universal claim. When paired with 'Pornography can cause harm,' it yields 'Pornography should be banned' as a direct instantiation: since pornography falls into the category 'Everything that can cause harm,' it must be banned according to this principle. In terms of logical validity, it functionally provides a sufficient condition for the conclusion via a universal rule, and the specific instance applies cleanly to pornography.
Consider potential concerns with each premise variant: Option 1 is more targeted and clearer in terms of logical form (a rule about what should happen to things that can cause harm). Option 2, while it can still support the conclusion, commits to a stronger normative stance (it bans all harmful-can-cause items, which may raise questions about exceptions or threshold conditions in real-world policy debates).
From a purely logical perspective, both premises, when added, enable a valid derivation of 'Pornography should be banned' from 'Pornography can cause harm.' The difference lies in scope and implicit assumptions about whether the general rule is appropriate or too sweeping, which can influence arguments in practice but does not by itself negate the validity outcome.

PHI 007Y A01 WQ 2025 Final Exam

P1. Pornography can cause harm. C. We should ban pornography. Which premises can we add (individually) that would make the argument valid:

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

X agreed to sexual activity with Y. Therefore, X has a contract with Y for sexual activity. Pineau argues that this argument is invalid. Adding which of the following premises would make it a valid (not sound!) argument (select all that apply):

Is the following argument valid or invalid?P1. Start-ups with young founders always succeed.P2. Ms. Lee is the founder of a start-up.P3. Ms. Lee is young.Therefore,C. Ms. Lee's start-up will succeed.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler