Single choice · #147
At the weekly administrative department meeting, the manager announced: 'This year, office expenses must be reduced; save wherever possible.' A month later, he approved the purchase of an automated production line that can increase productivity. Some employees privately commented that the manager was not keeping his word and was contradicting himself. From the perspective of the law of contradiction, what is the most accurate judgment?
Show answer & explanation
Answer: B
- AIt is a real contradiction: if one should be thrifty, large purchases should not be approved; the two actions cannot hold simultaneously at the same time.✗ Wrong. This misconception is 'only focusing on the literal words without checking the conditions': treating 'thrift' and 'spending' as opposites on the same level, without verifying whether the categories and standards for the two expenditures are the same.
- BIt may not be a contradiction: the former usually refers to general administrative expenses, while the latter is a strategic investment to enhance production capacity; the objects and standards of the expenditures are different, so both can hold simultaneously.✓ Correct. The law of contradiction requires first confirming whether the two statements concern the same object, time, and standard. Reducing office expenses and approving equipment investment belong to different expenditure categories and decision standards; without identity, a true contradiction cannot be asserted.
- CSaying 'save' first and then approving the purchase shows that the manager was lying from the start; he should be questioned about whether he is trustworthy.✗ Wrong. This misconception interprets inconsistent statements as malicious deception: the first step of the law of contradiction is to check whether the conditions are the same, not to suspect the other's motives or use contradiction as a tool to expose others.
- D'Reducing office expenses' and 'approving equipment investment' are a pair of contradictory judgments; according to the law of excluded middle, one of them must be true.✗ Wrong. This misconception misuses the law of excluded middle: it only applies to the same judgment under the same conditions with clear boundaries; here, 'reducing administrative expenses' and 'approving strategic investment' are two different judgments, and there is no relation that one must be true.
Explanation:Whether two pieces of information are contradictory depends on whether the object, time, and standard are consistent. Reducing office expenses generally refers to general administrative expenses, while approving a production line is a strategic investment to enhance production capacity; their objects and standards are different, so they can hold simultaneously. A contradiction can only be discussed when the expense categories, decision standards, and time ranges are the same. The distractors respectively err by only looking at the literal words without checking the conditions, equating inconsistency with lying, and misapplying the law of excluded middle—all common misconceptions in the law of contradiction.