PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 16
Moralist: Immoral actions are those that harm other(32 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APeople ignorant of(11 more words not shown)
- BAn action harms(11 more words not shown)
- COnly someone with(11 more words not shown)
- DThose who, in(10 more words not shown)
- ENone of those(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't it be both?
Someone who steals might fail to understand how stealing will eventually hurt them and also have a character defect. The moralist treats those explanations as if one automatically rules out the other.
We can accept the definition of immoral actions for this argument: they harm other people, and eventually they harm the person doing them, too. But the moralist goes further. Apparently, once people understand that personal cost, they won't act immorally. Is ignorance really the only possible explanation?
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument needs. My first concern is that jump from ignorance to no character defect. Let's see which answer identifies something the moralist has to take for granted.
Working the answers
- A
Whether we hold someone responsible is a different question from why they acted. The moralist could think ignorance explains the behavior and still hold the person responsible for its consequences. Nothing here requires excusing them.
- B
This says an action can hurt its performer only if it also hurts someone else. We don't need that sweeping rule. An action could hurt only the person doing it without affecting this argument about immoral actions, which already involve harm to others.
- C
This would connect knowingly harming other people with having a character defect. But someone might know they are hurting another person while remaining ignorant of the eventual harm to themselves. The moralist's proposed explanation concerns that missing understanding of consequences; it doesn't require this separate rule about everyone who knowingly hurts others.
- DCorrect
What if the person wants the harm to themselves? Then their behavior needn't come from ignorance of that consequence. They could understand it and deliberately seek it.
The moralist reasons as though eventual personal harm is something people would avoid if they knew about it. D rules out an important exception to that reasoning. Notice that this is more specific than the initial concern about ignorance and character: the answer points to intentional self-harm as a reason someone might act despite knowing what will happen.
- E
Unpack the two negatives: everyone who knowingly harms themselves has a character defect. The argument doesn't need that rule. It tries to explain immoral behavior through ignorance; E instead assigns a character defect to a different group. It also doesn't rule out someone deliberately accepting harm to themselves, which is the problem D addresses.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.