PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 17
Ethicist: The penalties for drunk driving are far(58 more words not shown)
The claim that the penalties(31 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(28 more words not shown)
- BIt is offered(26 more words not shown)
- CIt is offered(23 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(23 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Two people can make the same decision to drive drunk, yet the consequences can turn out very differently. One injures someone; the other doesn't. The passage says their legal penalties differ because of that outcome.
That makes the ethicist's contrast easy to follow. According to the definition we're given, moral responsibility depends only on the person's intentions. Legal responsibility sometimes also depends on what happened. If one standard considers results and the other doesn't, they aren't the same standard.
What we’re looking for
We don't need to settle how drunk driving should be punished. For this role question, start with the argument's point: legal responsibility differs from moral responsibility. Then ask what the first sentence does to support that point. It supplies the example showing that an unintended result can affect legal responsibility. That's the role we want, even if an answer describes it using different words.
Working the answers
- A
'Solely' changes the claim. The example shows that consequences can matter to legal responsibility. It doesn't establish that intentions never matter, or that legal responsibility depends only on unintended features of an action. Calling the sentence a premise is fine; describing what it supports this way is not.
- B
The argument establishes a difference between the two standards. It doesn't establish that the legal standard includes all the criteria of the moral standard and then adds others. We know moral responsibility depends solely on intentions, and legal responsibility sometimes considers results. The drunk-driving example doesn't establish the additional claim about which moral criteria the legal standard includes.
- C
The example compares more severe penalties with less severe penalties. It doesn't describe someone who has moral responsibility but no legal responsibility at all. A driver who injures nobody could still face a legal penalty. C replaces a difference in punishment with a different claim about whether legal responsibility exists.
- DCorrect
An accidental injury changes the penalty even though it wasn't intended. That supports the claim that legal responsibility sometimes depends on something other than intentions. Combine that with the separate premise that moral responsibility depends only on intentions, and we get the main conclusion: the two standards differ.
- E
The first sentence doesn't establish the definition of moral responsibility. How the law punishes people doesn't tell us what morality considers. The ethicist supplies that definition separately, then uses both premises to establish the difference between legal and moral responsibility. E incorrectly makes the first premise support the second.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.