LR Drill Set 3, Question 2
Philosopher: Any action that is fair never injures(38 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the philosopher's(6 more words not shown)
- Aconfuses what is(9 more words not shown)
- Bignores the possibility(16 more words not shown)
- Ctakes for granted(12 more words not shown)
- Dfails to distinguish(16 more words not shown)
- Efails to show(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The first chain works. The final step doesn't.
A fair action injures no one. An action that injures no one must be just. Put those together and every fair action must be just. We can follow that much without changing the direction of either rule.
But now we learn that some merciful actions are just. Does that make any of them fair? No. We know what fair actions must be like; we haven't established that every just action is fair.
Think of the just actions as a broad group that contains all the fair actions. The merciful actions we are told about could be elsewhere in that broad group, outside the fair ones. They would still be just, so every premise could remain true while the conclusion failed.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw answer, I'd look for treating a requirement of fairness as a guarantee of fairness. Being just is required. Meeting that requirement doesn't, by itself, get an action into the fair group.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Fairness requires justice, but the argument treats justice as enough to establish fairness. The merciful actions satisfy that requirement because they are just. We aren't given the additional connection needed to conclude that any of those actions are fair. This is the point where the argument reverses the rule it successfully established earlier.
- B
This possibility contradicts the stated rules. An action that injures no one must be just, and a fair action must injure no one. So an action cannot meet those descriptions and still be unjust if the premises are true. The argument's mistake isn't failing to preserve a possibility that its premises rule out.
- C
The opening rule does exclude injurious actions from the fair category. But the argument doesn't need to assume that any injurious actions actually exist, and the conclusion isn't about them. It moves from some just, merciful actions to fair actions. C doesn't identify the mistaken move.
- D
The argument does distinguish the words “fair” and “just”; it even gives a relationship between them. The problem is using that relationship in the wrong direction. D's claim about fairness and justice “to all parties” doesn't spell out the requirement-versus-guarantee error that A captures.
- E
A connection between mercy and lack of injury would not itself guarantee fairness either. We know that not injuring anyone requires being just, not that it establishes being fair. The exact missing permission is to move from justice to fairness. E points to an unstated relationship without showing how supplying it would repair that final step.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.