PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 14
We have a moral obligation not to destroy(28 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AIt is morally(20 more words not shown)
- BWe are morally(15 more words not shown)
- CThe moral commitments(15 more words not shown)
- DWe are morally(16 more words not shown)
- EBeing morally obligated(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Even if the book is mine, I must not destroy it. Why does ownership fail to settle what I may do with it?
Perhaps preserving the knowledge benefits other people. I can see that as a reason to care about books. But I also wonder about an exception: a tattered, barely readable copy of a book that exists in many other copies. Would recycling that one really deprive the future of its contents? The argument gives a broad rule, and that example makes me hesitate before treating every act of destruction the same way.
The author's actual reason is that preserved books will almost certainly enrich future generations intellectually and emotionally. That is a claim about future benefit. The conclusion is a claim about our moral obligation now. We need a principle connecting the benefit to the obligation not to destroy.
What we’re looking for
For the principle question, focus on that connection. Something like “If preserving a thing will enrich future generations, we ought not destroy it” would explain the reasoning. That is more specific than a general instruction to do good things, and it doesn't require us to settle every practical question about damaged copies.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us to devote effort to actions that might improve other people's lives. The argument instead requires us to refrain from a particular action: destroying books. A broad duty to make beneficial efforts doesn't by itself specify that this is something we must never destroy. D matches that obligation and the future-generation reason directly.
- B
We aren't told that earlier generations preserved these books for us. The argument could concern a newly printed book that would benefit people in the future. B makes past preservation the trigger for our duty, while the stated reason is future enrichment.
- C
There is no conflict between a duty to the present generation and a duty to future generations in the argument. The author doesn't say we must sacrifice one obligation to honor the other. C ranks competing commitments without supplying the missing reason books must not be destroyed.
- DCorrect
“Posterity” means future generations. D says we must not destroy something that will most likely enrich those people intellectually or emotionally. Books meet that description according to the premise: if preserved, they will almost certainly provide both kinds of enrichment. The principle turns that expected benefit into the obligation the author claims.
The answer's “either” isn't a problem. Something expected to provide both kinds of enrichment satisfies a rule that applies when it provides at least one.
- E
This sets a requirement for having an obligation; it doesn't give us a rule establishing the obligation. It also changes the beneficiaries to someone we know, whereas the premise concerns future generations. We can't start with expected benefit to future people and use E to conclude that destruction is forbidden.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.