P1. People want bathrooms separated by sex/gender.

P2. We should do what people want.

therefore, we should separate bathrooms by sex/gender.

This argument is _________. (answer all that apply)

Question

P1. People want bathrooms separated by sex/gender.

P2. We should do what people want.

therefore, we should separate bathrooms by sex/gender.

This argument is _________. (answer all that apply)

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The prompt presents an argument structure and asks to select all that apply, but there are no answer options provided to analyze beyond the one listed in the 'answer' field.

First, restating the question: The argument is:
- P1: People want bathrooms separated by sex/gender.
- P2: We should do what people want.
- Therefore: we should separate bathrooms by sex/gender.
The prompt asks which labels apply to this argument (e.g., valid, invalid, etc.), but no option list is given to evaluate.

Because there are no explicit answer choices to scrutinize, we cannot systematically mark each option as correct or incorrect. Instead, we can discuss the logical character of the argument in general terms.

- Analyzing the implied claim: The argument uses a premise that states a desire (people want X) and a normative premise (we should do what people want). From these, the conclusion asserts that X should be done. Logically, if one accepts the normative premise (that we should do what people want) as universally valid, then the conclusion does indeed follow from the two premises. In that sense, the argument can be seen as valid within the system where “we should do what people want” is treated as a universal principle.

- Possible misinterpretations or concerns:
  - If we treat “we should do what people want” as a descriptive claim (what people want) rather than a normative rule, the leap to action can be questioned, which would undermine the argument’s soundness but not necessarily its validity in a purely formal sense.
  - The argument may be criticized as an appeal to popularity or to the desires of a group (ad populum). This is a rhetorical critique rather than a purely logical validity critique, but it highlights why the conclusion might be considered weak or unconvincing in ethical or policy terms.
  - The content of P1 (what people want) and the normative P2 (what we should do) depend on context, values, and potential counterarguments (e.g., rights, safety, practicality). Even if the form is technically valid given P2, the overall argument can be disputed on substantive grounds.

- Why someone might label it as valid: If the acceptance criterion is merely that the conclusion follows from the premises using a straightforward rule (P2’s mandate applies to any situation), then the argument’s structure is a simple, direct application of that rule, making it formally valid under that principle.

- Why someone might label it invalid or weak: If the criterion is about the soundness and persuasiveness of the argument in real-world ethical discourse, the inference may be contested due to normative assumptions, potential harms, or empirical uncertainties about the consequences of separating bathrooms by sex/gender.

In summary, given the lack of explicit options to evaluate, the analysis centers on the logical form and common critiques: the argument can be seen as valid if one accepts the universal normative premise “we should do what people want,” but it is subject to questions of soundness and rhetorical weakness (appeal to popularity) depending on how the premises are interpreted and whether the normative principle is accepted.

PHI 007Y A01 WQ 2025 Final Exam

P1. People want bathrooms separated by sex/gender. P2. We should do what people want. therefore, we should separate bathrooms by sex/gender. This argument is _________. (answer all that apply)

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

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

P1. Pornography causes women to be objectified. C. Banning pornography will end the objectification of women. Is this argument valid?

Part I – [TOTAL SCORE 10] Determine whether each of the following propositions is True or False. I.4 “A given argument with the false conclusion is invalid only if none of its premises are false.”

The following argument is sound: All cities have terrible public transit. Oakville has terrible public transit. Therefore, Oakville is a city.

P1. People want bathrooms separated by sex/gender. P2. We should do what people want. therefore, we should separate bathrooms by sex/gender. This argument is _________. (answer all that apply)

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

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

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