PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 21
Ethicist: As a function of one's job and(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AA teacher thinks(42 more words not shown)
- BA person should(26 more words not shown)
- CA police investigator(35 more words not shown)
- DA psychiatrist's patient(45 more words not shown)
- EA journalist thinks(31 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Having a duty doesn't mean we should follow it no matter what happens. The ethicist allows that doing what a job or social role normally requires can sometimes have disastrous consequences.
But be careful about the exception. The rule isn't “Do your duty only after proving that nothing bad can happen.” It's “Do your duty unless you have overwhelming evidence that doing so will be disastrous.” A possible downside isn't enough to get out of the obligation.
Imagine a duty to keep your lawn in decent shape for your neighbors. Under ordinary conditions, the ethicist would tell you to fulfill it. A severe water shortage could give us a very different situation. The reason for raising that possibility is to see how serious the exception is, not to treat every inconvenience as a disaster.
What we’re looking for
We're applying the final principle. Look for an existing duty, no overwhelming evidence of disaster, and a recommendation to fulfill the duty. The principle doesn't give us a complete set of instructions for every difficult situation. In particular, it doesn't tell us how to choose between two conflicting duties.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The teacher has a duty not to change a grade that the student's work merits. The possible harm to an internship application doesn't supply overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences. The principle therefore supports fulfilling the duty and keeping the earned grade.
Missing an internship can matter to a student. We don't need to dismiss that concern. But “might harm the chance” of getting an internship is a much weaker description than the exception the ethicist specifies.
- B
Making the friend happier isn't overwhelming evidence that telling the truth would be disastrous. This answer uses an ordinary benefit of lying to recommend not fulfilling the duty. The principle gives us no such exception.
- C
The contractor's charitable purpose and promise to stop don't establish disastrous consequences from reporting the conduct. C recommends setting aside the investigator's duty for reasons the principle never makes sufficient.
- D
Which duty takes priority: reporting or confidentiality? The answer chooses reporting, but the principle doesn't resolve that conflict. Saying “fulfill your duty” cannot settle a case in which fulfilling one duty would mean breaking another.
- E
Endangering innocent lives sounds serious, but notice the evidence: a slight chance. That is not overwhelming evidence that filing the story will have disastrous consequences. The answer recommends waiting on the basis of that slight chance; the principle doesn't supply that recommendation.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.