PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 12
One can never tell whether another person is(30 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe intention of(10 more words not shown)
- BThe assigning of(17 more words not shown)
- COne can sometimes(8 more words not shown)
- DThere can be(10 more words not shown)
- EOne cannot know(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Imagine someone donating to charity to impress friends rather than to help the recipients. The donation is visible; the private motive may not be. That is the sort of hidden intention the opening claim concerns.
Let's accept the premise that we can never tell whether another person is acting from an ulterior motive. Why does that make it impossible to judge the action's morality? We need a connection between knowing the motive and evaluating morality. Perhaps someone could instead judge the action by what it does for the people affected.
There is another step to question, too. Even if we can't settle an action's morality with certainty, why must we abandon that evaluation and assess only consequences? An uncertain evaluation might still be useful.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle that most helps justify the reasoning. It could improve the argument by addressing one of these gaps; it needn't turn every step into a complete proof. The most immediate missing connection is why not knowing someone's motive prevents a moral evaluation.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
'Indispensable' means required: we can't dispense with the intention when evaluating morality. Intention connects to motive because both concern why the person acts. If that information is required, then our inability to tell whether someone has a hidden motive becomes a reason we cannot evaluate the action's morality. A supports the argument's first inferential step, even though it doesn't separately establish every part of the final recommendation.
- B
Saying that praise and blame are especially important doesn't tell us what information is needed to judge morality. We could agree that assigning them matters and still disagree that an unknown motive prevents moral evaluation. B doesn't provide the missing connection.
- C
Knowing your own motives is different from knowing another person's motives. The opening claim concerns assessing someone else. The possibility of self-knowledge doesn't show why another person's inaccessible intention would make that person's action impossible to evaluate morally.
- D
This separates the goodness of an action from the character of the person performing it. Someone with a bad character might still help another person. But that possibility doesn't establish whether we need to know the intention behind an action to evaluate its morality.
- E
This makes knowledge of consequences a requirement for judging morality. The argument's first step depends on a different requirement: knowledge of intention. Even if consequences were necessary, perhaps we could know those consequences and judge the act without knowing its motive. E doesn't explain the claimed impossibility that follows from hidden motives.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.