PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 2
Pacifist: It is immoral to do anything that(32 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AGiven the potential(24 more words not shown)
- BIt is immoral(10 more words not shown)
- CIt is immoral(9 more words not shown)
- DWhether a threat(9 more words not shown)
- EIt is immoral(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Threatening force isn't the same as using it.
The pacifist starts with a strict rule: doing anything that harms another person is immoral. I can imagine objecting that force might sometimes prevent a greater harm. But that would challenge the starting rule. To understand this argument, let's grant the pacifist that rule and see what follows from it.
Using force causes harm, so the rule makes using force immoral. The conclusion then adds something new: even threatening force is immoral, including in self-defense. A threat might not be carried out. Why must its moral status be the same as that of the action threatened?
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that supports the reasoning. I want a link from the action to the threat: if doing something is immoral, threatening to do it is also immoral. We don't have to say the two are equally bad. We only need the threat to count as immoral too.
Working the answers
- A
Blurring the line between defensive and aggressive force doesn't bridge the gap between using force and threatening it. Under the pacifist's rule, harmful force is immoral either way. We still need a reason that making a threat also counts as immoral.
- BCorrect
We already have the first part: using force is immoral because it causes harm. B tells us that threatening an immoral action is itself immoral. That carries the judgment from using force to threatening force, which is the precise move the conclusion makes.
The rule contains no exception for a threat made in self-defense. So it supports that part of the conclusion too. Whether we personally agree with the pacifist's starting principle is separate from whether B connects the stated reasons to the stated conclusion.
- C
The argument never compares the total harm and good caused by force or by a threat. The pacifist condemns causing harm even without that comparison. A rule against doing more harm than good would leave open a threat that prevents greater harm, and it still wouldn't establish the categorical conclusion about threats.
- D
The conclusion says threatening force is immoral even in self-defense. Saying that its morality depends on the circumstances doesn't support that categorical judgment. It leaves open situations in which the threat might be acceptable, rather than supplying the missing connection.
- E
Follow the direction. E starts with an immoral threat and concludes that carrying it out is immoral. We are starting with an immoral action and trying to establish that threatening it is immoral. E can't get us there.
We don't yet know the threat is immoral; that's exactly what the pacifist is trying to establish. A rule telling us what follows after we know that fact doesn't supply it.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.