PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 9
Philosopher: An action is morally good if it(13 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AColin chose to(40 more words not shown)
- BDerek prepared a(43 more words not shown)
- CEllen worked overtime(33 more words not shown)
- DLouisa tried to(46 more words not shown)
- EYolanda took her(41 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The philosopher gives us two things that together establish a morally good action: the person achieves the intended goal, and someone else benefits. Keep both requirements in view when reading the stories.
The rule does not say this is the only way an action can be morally good. If someone fails to achieve the goal, we cannot use this rule to establish goodness, but we also cannot jump to “therefore, the action was not morally good.” The passage gives us a way to justify a positive judgment, not a rule for condemning everything else.
What we’re looking for
So I am looking for an achieved goal, a benefit to another person, and a conclusion that the action was morally good. Our own reaction to whether someone behaved admirably cannot replace those stated criteria.
Working the answers
- A
Colin wanted to protect his friends, but his deception was discovered and his friends were punished. He did not achieve the goal. Acting out of love does not supply the successful outcome the principle requires for this judgment.
- B
Derek's neighbors appreciated his attempt to welcome them even though they could not eat the steak dinner. Whatever we decide about how successfully he welcomed them, the rule provides no basis for the stated conclusion that his action was not morally good. A disappointing dinner is not enough to derive that negative judgment from this principle.
- C
Ellen benefited her family through the extra vacation money, so we have a benefit to someone else. But her intended goal was a promotion, and she did not get it. Meeting only one of the two conditions does not let us establish the positive judgment using this rule.
- D
Louisa intended harm and failed to carry out her plan. We might have our own reasons for judging her behavior, but the philosopher's rule does not classify actions as not morally good based on harmful intentions. D's negative conclusion is not an application of the stated rule.
- ECorrect
Yolanda wanted her children to enjoy their vacation, and they enjoyed the visit, so she achieved her goal. Her children and their grandfather benefited through their enjoyment, so someone other than Yolanda benefited as well. Both conditions are met. Yolanda enjoying the visit too does not spoil the result: the rule requires a benefit to someone else, not the absence of a benefit to the person acting.
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.