Just about every argument we look at makes use of a "conditional." A conditional is a statement of this form:

If P, then Q.

The P here is called the *antecedent* of
the conditional. The Q is called the *consequent*.

For instance, the Abe the Abuser argument against 10C contains this line:

"If 10C is true, then Abe's acts of beating up this children are morally permissible."

If can be tricky to explain why a conditionals
is true. Notice that the conditional above about 10C
does __not__ say that 10C is true. It also
does __not__ say that Abe's acts of beating up this children
are morally permissible. Rather, it says that __if__
10C is true, __then__ Abe's acts are morally permissible. Thus,
it is possible to agree with the whole conditional even though
you do not agree with either the antecedent or the consequent. Thus,
in order to explain why the above conditional is true, it will
do you no good to try to explain why 10C is true, or to try to
explain why Abe's acts are permissible.

What you need to do is explain the *connection*
between 10C's being true and Abe's acts being permissible. To
do that, do these two steps:

1. Assume that the antecedent is true.

2. Show that, given this assumption, the consequent would also have to be true.

If you do these two steps, you will have
explained why the whole conditional is true. When you
do this, you are __not__ committing yourself to believing that
the antecedent is true. Rather, you are merely *assuming*
it to be true for the purposes of explaining why the whole conditional
is true.

So here is the rationale behind the conditional about Abe (i.e., the reason it is true):

"Let's suppose 10C is true. Well, 10C is the view that an act is morally right if and only if it does violate any of the Ten Commandments. So, given the assumption that 10C is true, it follows that any act that does not violate any of the Ten Commandments is morally permissible. Abe's acts of beating up his children do not violate any of the Ten Commandments. He never beats them up on the Sabbath; he never murders them; he never takes the Lord's name in vain while he is beating them up; etc. In short, he never violates any of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, these acts are morally permissible, given the assumption of 10C.

Just to see different ways of doing it, here is another excellent rationale:

10C says that any act that does not violate any of the Ten Commandments is morally permissible. 10C thus implies that Abe's acts of beating up this children are morally permissible, because in doing so, Abe never violates any of the Ten Commandments (he never beats them up on the Sabbath; he never murders them; he never takes the Lord's name in vain while he is beating them up; etc.).