LR Drill Set 10, Question 6
Carta: Regardless of John's intentions, his behavior in(49 more words not shown)
The dialogue most supports the(19 more words not shown)
- AEvery action that(6 more words not shown)
- BEvery action that(6 more words not shown)
- CJohn's intentions are(13 more words not shown)
- DJohn's behavior would(10 more words not shown)
- EOnly actions that(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
They agree that John violated professional standards and deserves sanctions. The disagreement concerns whether his conduct was also a moral failing.
Carta starts with 'regardless of John's intentions.' For Carta, whatever John meant to do does not change the moral verdict in this case. Reese, however, says the intentions are precisely why the behavior cannot properly be called a moral failing. Reese can support professional sanctions while rejecting Carta's moral assessment.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a statement the two speakers disagree about. My first prediction is simply, 'Was John's behavior a moral failing?' The choices might express the same split through the reason for their verdicts. So keep the intentions in view: Carta sets them aside, while Reese gives them decisive weight. We aren't being given a universal theory about every moral or professional violation.
Working the answers
- A
Neither speaker says that every moral violation is a professional violation. Carta describes one case as both; that doesn't establish a rule covering all actions. Reese also makes no claim about every action. There aren't two opposing positions on this universal statement.
- B
Calling John's behavior both a professional and a moral failing doesn't commit Carta to saying every professional failing is immoral. Reese rejects the moral label for John, but a position from Reese alone isn't enough. We still need Carta to endorse the broad claim, and Carta doesn't.
- CCorrect
Carta treats John's intentions as irrelevant to the moral evaluation in this case: the behavior is a moral failing regardless. Reese treats the intentions as relevant enough to change that evaluation: because of those intentions, the behavior isn't properly called a moral failing.
This reaches the disagreement through its basis rather than simply asking whether John's conduct was immoral. Both speakers have clear, opposed positions on that basis.
- D
Carta grounds severe sanctions in the serious professional lapse, independently of intentions. Reese agrees that the conduct merits sanctions, but does not say what severity would be appropriate under different intentions. We don't have a clear disagreement over this hypothetical claim. Their explicit dispute concerns moral evaluation.
- E
Carta says serious professional lapses merit severe sanctions without stating that a moral failing must also be present. Reese supports sanctions for John while denying the moral failing, but doesn't explicitly specify severe sanctions. This answer turns their discussion into a restrictive general rule that the speakers aren't shown to dispute.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.