PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 18
Ethicist: Many environmentalists hold that the natural environment(78 more words not shown)
The ethicist's reasoning most closely(8 more words not shown)
- AAn argument in(22 more words not shown)
- BIf an argument(27 more words not shown)
- CIf it is(23 more words not shown)
- DAnything that has(14 more words not shown)
- EAn argument for(32 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We don't have to settle nature's moral value to have a reason to preserve it. That's the ethicist's starting move: beauty can supply another reason.
Within this argument, nature's beauty is accepted as undeniable, while its moral value is open to philosophical dispute. The ethicist favors using the less disputed feature as the basis for the case. If we rely on moral value, someone can challenge whether nature has it. The argument says that particular challenge isn't available against beauty.
Would the less controversial argument always motivate people more? Maybe a disputed moral claim would move its supporters more strongly than an agreed claim about beauty. But the conclusion here is specifically about vulnerability to logical objections, not how intensely people care or whether they'll take action.
What we’re looking for
We're choosing the principle that matches this reasoning. My prediction is a rule favoring a basis for preservation that people can accept without first settling the disputed philosophical question. The characteristic needs to do two jobs: give a reason to preserve nature and actually belong to nature without that dispute.
Working the answers
- A
The ethicist doesn't avoid what makes nature worth preserving. Beauty is offered as a reason it is worth preserving. A describes stepping around the issue entirely, whereas the argument addresses it through a different basis.
- B
An objection to whether nature has moral value doesn't establish that moral value would be an insufficient reason to preserve it if it did. The ethicist compares the vulnerability of two arguments, rather than declaring that every challenged characteristic fails to justify preservation. B goes beyond that comparison.
- C
Uncertainty about whether nature has moral value doesn't mean it would be more clearly worth preserving if it lacked moral value. We could still have the reason based on beauty either way. The argument recommends a less disputed basis; it doesn't turn absence of the disputed characteristic into an advantage.
- D
This gives a rule for anything with moral value. But the argument says whether nature has moral value is disputed, so the rule wouldn't settle how to argue for preserving nature. It also leaves out the comparison with the less disputed basis of beauty.
- ECorrect
Beauty fits both parts. It can be regarded as a reason to preserve nature, and the passage treats nature's beauty as indisputable. Using it therefore avoids the particular challenge facing the moral-value argument: whether the thing we want to preserve has the relevant characteristic at all.
This matches the ethicist's reasoning without claiming that nature lacks moral value or that an argument from beauty faces no possible objection. The conclusion is that it will be less open to objections.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.