PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 23
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it(62 more words not shown)
The philosopher's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AOnly wrong actions(15 more words not shown)
- BNo action is(4 more words not shown)
- CAny action that(7 more words not shown)
- DThere are actions(17 more words not shown)
- EOnly right actions(3 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What happened to morally neutral?
The philosopher gives us a way for an action to count as right: it is reasonably expected to improve the overall well-being of the people it affects. Then we get a stricter rule for wrong actions: an action is wrong exactly when it is reasonably expected to reduce that overall well-being.
I might have concerns about judging actions only by the total outcome. An action could help several people while badly hurting someone else. But for this question, I'll work with the philosopher's rules. The immediate gap is what they say about an action that leaves overall well-being unchanged.
Suppose I toss a pen in the air and catch it, and this is expected to make no difference to anyone's well-being. It doesn't meet the philosopher's test for being wrong. But why does that make it right? Couldn't it simply fall into neither category? “Not wrong” hasn't yet been connected to “right.”
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. Give me that connection: any action that isn't wrong must be right. Then the unchanged-well-being actions, which aren't wrong under the stated rule, will have to count as right. We need to close the middle category the philosopher has left open.
Working the answers
- A
This says an action expected to reduce overall well-being must be wrong. We already have that in the philosopher's rule. Our unresolved actions leave well-being unchanged. A gives us no reason to put them in the right category.
- B
This prevents an action from being both right and wrong. But our concern is that an action might be neither. Two categories can fail to overlap and still leave something outside both. B doesn't make an action with unchanged well-being count as right.
- CCorrect
Start with an action expected to leave overall well-being unchanged. It isn't expected to reduce well-being, so under the philosopher's rule it cannot be morally wrong. C then supplies the missing step: if it isn't wrong, it is right.
That gets us exactly to the conclusion. The pen example can't sit outside both categories anymore. Once we establish that it isn't wrong, C requires us to call it right.
- D
This establishes that actions with unchanged overall well-being exist. It doesn't tell us how to classify them. We could accept D while calling every such action morally neutral, leaving the philosopher's conclusion unsupported.
- E
This connects good consequences with right actions. But the actions in the conclusion leave overall well-being unchanged. We haven't been told that their consequences count as good. E therefore doesn't establish that those actions are right. We need a rule about actions that aren't wrong, not another route involving good consequences.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.