CARS Quiz
20 questions · no time limit
0:00
REASONING BEYOND THE TEXT
Question 1 of 20
No time limit
Current
Answered
Flagged
Not seen
A philosopher presents an ethical argument about promises grounded in "reliance symmetry." The philosopher claims that the ethical significance of a promise arises when one person's assurance invites another to reorganize their plans. The wrong of breaking a promise is not merely that a rule was violated, but that the promisor induced reliance and then imposed the costs of adjustment on the promisee.
The philosopher argues that not all assurances generate the same reliance. A casual statement may not reasonably invite major reorganization, while a formal commitment may. Thus, the philosopher proposes a principle: the greater the reasonable reliance invited, the stronger the obligation to either perform or to compensate for disruption.
The philosopher also notes that sometimes the promisee can mitigate reliance costs cheaply, while in other cases mitigation is expensive or impossible. Reliance symmetry requires attending to this distribution: ethical evaluation should consider whether the promisor could have avoided inducing reliance, and whether the promisee could have protected themselves without unreasonable burden.
In a scenario, a landlord tells a tenant, "You can renew for another year," leading the tenant to decline other housing. Later the landlord reverses, saying the statement was "not official." The tenant could find a new place, but only by paying high fees and moving quickly. Under the philosopher's argument, which response is most consistent?
YOUR PROGRESS
20
QUESTIONS
Ready when you are
Answer in any order. Your progress shows here as you go.
QUESTIONS
KEYBOARD
Pick an answer ABCD
Next question ↵→
Previous ←
Flag for review F
Answers save as you go · flagged questions come back at the end