PrepTest 110, Section 3, Question 16
Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AIt is morally(25 more words not shown)
- BIt is morally(17 more words not shown)
- CIt is morally(23 more words not shown)
- DIt is morally(24 more words not shown)
- EIt is morally(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You said you wouldn't ask for the money. What changed?
The contractor did a bad job, so at first an order to pay the company sounds understandable. Then we learn about the agreement: the company had already promised that the contractor wouldn't be financially liable if the work was inadequate. That makes its later request for compensation harder to defend.
Think about offering to pay for dinner with a friend. After paying the bill, you ask the friend to send you their share. The objection isn't that sharing a bill is always wrong. It's that you offered to cover it and then tried to collect money you said you wouldn't ask for. The prior promise matters.
What we’re looking for
The ethicist makes a moral judgment about the company's similar change of position. We aren't being asked whether the court correctly applied the law. To justify this reasoning, I'd look for a principle saying it is morally wrong to seek compensation after promising to forgo it. That would connect the agreement we have to the judgment the ethicist makes.
Working the answers
- A
Pay attention to 'only if.' This says the other party's compliance is required before breaking an agreement counts as morally wrong. It doesn't say that breaking an agreement is morally wrong whenever that requirement is met. We need a rule establishing why the company's request was wrong; A gives a restriction on when we may call it wrong. We also aren't told that the contractor fulfilled every part of the agreement.
- B
We don't know whether the contractor can afford to make restitution. More importantly, the ethicist's reason concerns what the company promised, not the contractor's ability to pay. B would support a different argument if we had evidence of inability to make restitution. It doesn't connect this agreement to the moral judgment.
- C
The company hired the contractor to do the job, but that doesn't mean it induced the contractor to do the job badly. The request for compensation concerns the bungled work. C needs that action to have been induced by the company, and the passage doesn't establish that.
- D
Again, 'only if' gives a requirement rather than a rule that establishes moral wrongdoing. Even clear evidence that the agreement was legally permissible would merely meet the requirement this principle sets. D doesn't say that ignoring a legally permissible agreement is therefore morally wrong, so it doesn't supply the needed support.
- ECorrect
The company promised not to seek compensation for inadequate performance, then sought compensation for that very performance. E says doing this is morally wrong. The promise, the action covered by it, and the later demand for compensation all match the facts.
This supports the ethicist's conclusion without requiring us to settle whether the court's legal ruling was correct. The supplied principle makes the company's broken promise the basis for the moral judgment.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.