LR Drill Set 5, Question 9
Philosopher: To become a more ethical person, one(39 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- APeople who are(15 more words not shown)
- BA person should(22 more words not shown)
- CNo one should(9 more words not shown)
- DUnless performing an(18 more words not shown)
- EOne should make(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do we want people to become more ethical, or do we just want to stop them from doing anything wrong?
Those goals can come apart here. Imagine a society that blocks every unethical action before anyone can choose it. People might behave perfectly because they have no other option. But the philosopher says that becoming more ethical requires opportunities to make ethical decisions for yourself. Under that rule, forced good behavior doesn't provide the opportunity for growth.
I can follow the consequence: prevent every unethical choice, and you prevent that kind of ethical development. But why must we preserve the development?
Someone could answer, “I care more about preventing harm than about giving people room to grow.” The philosopher hasn't yet supplied a reason to reject that priority.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that helps justify the recommendation. I'd want a rule saying that people should have the opportunity to become more ethical. That would make the loss we identified a reason against completely preventing unethical behavior. We need to establish why the opportunity should be protected, not merely describe what people might do with it.
Working the answers
- A
Perhaps allowing occasional unethical behavior usually doesn't make people worse. That still doesn't tell us why anyone should be allowed the choice. A supporter of strict control could accept A and continue to prioritize stopping all unethical acts. Avoiding deterioration isn't the same as establishing a duty to preserve the opportunity for improvement.
- B
“Only if” sets a condition someone must meet before being allowed to decide. This rule requires that making the decision itself cause ethical improvement. It therefore restricts permission rather than saying we should provide the opportunities the philosopher wants to protect. Saying you may go to a store only on Tuesday doesn't require anyone to let you go on Tuesday; it limits when going is allowed. B similarly doesn't supply the needed recommendation to allow choices.
- CCorrect
No one should be denied the opportunity to become more ethical. The premises tell us that completely preventing unethical behavior would deny the decisions needed for that growth. C makes that consequence unacceptable, supporting the conclusion that people should not always be prevented from behaving unethically. The rule connects the described consequence to what we should do about it.
- D
This tells us to prevent an action unless it will make the person more ethical. It imposes a restriction, much as B does. The argument needs a reason to leave room for people to make choices, including choices that might go badly. D instead demands an ethical benefit before allowing an action and doesn't establish that we should preserve those opportunities.
- E
This advises an individual who already has an opportunity: make an ethical decision yourself. But the philosopher's conclusion concerns whether people should be prevented from having certain choices in the first place. A rule about using opportunities well doesn't by itself tell society to provide them.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.