PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 9
Theories generated by scientific research were used to(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIndividuals who develop(21 more words not shown)
- BIndividuals are justified(20 more words not shown)
- CIndividuals should receive(29 more words not shown)
- DIndividuals who perform(26 more words not shown)
- EIndividuals should be(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
They discovered the theory. Did they choose to pollute the environment?
To make this concrete, imagine researchers developing a theory that someone else later uses to make a useful but polluting energy source. The scientists couldn't foresee or control that application. I can see why the author doesn't want to blame them for the resulting damage.
Still, someone could disagree: without the research, the product wouldn't have existed, so perhaps the researchers bear some indirect responsibility. Whether we like that view isn't the question. The facts about what the scientists knew and controlled don't settle responsibility until we have a rule connecting those facts to the conclusion.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that justifies the conclusion. I want a rule that clears these scientists of responsibility: people aren't responsible for unforeseen harms resulting from other people's use of their work. Apply that to the facts, and the conclusion that these scientists should not be held responsible would follow.
Working the answers
- A
The final condition is the problem: “if improperly used.” We haven't been told that anyone misused these products. A useful product could harm the environment even when used exactly as intended. Without improper use, this rule doesn't give us the protection from responsibility that the conclusion needs.
- B
This sets a requirement for being justified in an activity with foreseeable good and bad consequences. Our scientists couldn't foresee the relevant applications, and the conclusion concerns responsibility for the damage afterward. A rule about when someone may undertake a foreseeably risky activity doesn't establish that these scientists should escape responsibility.
- C
This makes accepting responsibility for unforeseen harm a requirement for receiving credit for foreseeable benefits. We aren't told that the scientists should receive that credit, and the rule doesn't excuse them from responsibility. It cannot establish the conclusion that they should not be held responsible for the damage.
- DCorrect
The activity is the scientists' research. Other people used its results to develop products, and the environmental harm was an unforeseen undesirable consequence of that use. D says people should not be held responsible in that situation. The rule fits the facts and delivers the conclusion; we don't need an additional rule identifying who should be blamed instead.
- E
This tells us to hold people responsible for foreseeable harms. It doesn't say that those are the only harms for which people can be responsible. A person could be responsible for both foreseeable and unforeseeable harms under this rule, so it doesn't clear the scientists. The separate provision about credit for benefits doesn't do that either.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.