PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 12
Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be(82 more words not shown)
The ethicist's statements, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AScientists should not(9 more words not shown)
- BAccording to the(18 more words not shown)
- CScience is morally(12 more words not shown)
- DIt is possible(19 more words not shown)
- EThe uses and(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A scientist could follow one set of rules and break the other. The difference is what the two systems require the scientist to consider.
According to the ethicist's description, science's traditional values allow theoretical research to proceed without considering its foreseeable harmful applications. Ordinary morality requires those foreseeable consequences to be taken into account. Those aren't the same standard.
Imagine a researcher who can foresee that a discovery could be used to create a harmful weapon. The researcher proceeds without considering that danger in the decision. Under the scientific value system described here, leaving it out is permitted. Under the stated rule of ordinary morality, leaving it out is a violation.
That example doesn't require us to decide that every harmful discovery is immoral, or that scientists must ignore consequences. The distinction is between being allowed to leave consequences out and being required to consider them.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what the statements most strongly support. I'd predict that these value systems can conflict in this particular respect. Someone can satisfy one while failing to satisfy the other.
Working the answers
- A
The ethicist describes the two standards without telling us how responsibility should be assigned. Permission within one value system to disregard consequences doesn't establish that scientists should be excused from responsibility. That is a further judgment the passage doesn't make.
- B
What if the harm was not foreseeable? Ordinary morality, as described here, requires consideration of foreseeable consequences, not knowledge of every consequence that eventually occurs. And even if harm was foreseeable, requiring scientists to consider it isn't the same as forbidding any research that could cause harm. B skips both distinctions.
- C
Moral neutrality is introduced as something people frequently say about science, not a conclusion the ethicist establishes. Also, consequences not having to be considered doesn't mean they have no value whatsoever. The passage describes a difference between standards rather than proving C's explanation of neutrality.
- DCorrect
A scientist could follow the traditional values described here while disregarding foreseeable harmful consequences. That would violate the stated ordinary-morality requirement to take those consequences into account. D says this conflict is possible; it doesn't claim that scientists always violate ordinary morality.
- E
Being able to foresee an effect is different from being required to consider it in a decision. The passage explicitly says scientists sometimes foresee harmful applications. The question is whether they must take that foresight into account, not whether foresight is impossible.
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.