Introduction / Context:
This aphorism advises taking precautions (secure valuables) while being polite and trusting in speech (“call everybody a gentleman”). The question is which hidden beliefs must be true for the advice to make sense.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Advice: Be courteous but protect your belongings.
- Assumption I: Locked items cannot be stolen.
- Assumption II: Stealing is a crime.
Concept / Approach:
The instruction encourages prudence, not absolute safety, and it does not rely on legal definitions. The essence is risk reduction despite outward civility. Thus an assumption of invulnerability (I) or a legal/moral proposition (II) is not necessary for the pragmatic advice.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is too strong. Locking reduces risk but does not make theft impossible. The recommendation still makes sense even if theft could occur despite locks.II (stealing is a crime) is a true statement in most jurisdictions, but the advice does not require it. Even if stealing were not legally defined as a crime in a hypothetical world, one might still wish to avoid loss and therefore secure valuables.
Verification / Alternative check:
The core logic is: be prudent because not everyone is trustworthy. That does not depend on legal categorization or on absolute security.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only and II-only: Each adds an unnecessary premise.Either/Both: Overstate requirements not needed for the maxim to be sensible.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading “lock” as a guarantee instead of a precaution; importing external legal claims that the advice does not hinge on.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit
Discussion & Comments