PrepTest 135, Section 2, Question 8
Caldwell: The government recently demolished a former naval(59 more words not shown)
Caldwell's argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(18 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(11 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(10 more words not shown)
- Einappropriately treats two(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why tear down a whole complex with a pool, gardens, offices, and housing? I can see why Caldwell thinks the community has lost an opportunity.
But I'd still want to know why the government demolished it. Was there a serious problem with the site? Could clearing it make room for some other benefit? Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts we can assume. A list of useful facilities doesn't tell us everything about the decision.
Caldwell acknowledges that the demolition was legally allowed, then calls it inefficient and immoral because community use would have benefited everyone. Legal permission doesn't automatically make an action wise or morally right. Still, the reverse problem matters too: has Caldwell actually established that this choice was immoral?
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, keep pressing that last step. We can accept that using the facilities for the community would have been beneficial without immediately accepting every criticism of the alternative. I'd want Caldwell to explain what makes the demolition morally unacceptable, not just point to something good that could have been done instead.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Having an alternative that benefits everyone doesn't automatically make the chosen action morally forbidden. Perhaps demolition was allowed morally even if community use would have been better. Caldwell needs a rule or further reason connecting the forgone benefit to immorality. We don't have to prove demolition was the best option to see that the moral condemnation hasn't been established.
- B
Caldwell treats consequences as relevant: the benefit the community could have received is the reason offered for criticizing the demolition. The problem is whether that consequence establishes immorality, not an assumption that consequences have nothing to do with morality.
- C
The criticism concerns this demolition. Caldwell doesn't need to believe the government never acts efficiently. The government could handle many other projects efficiently, and Caldwell's objection to this one would remain the same.
- D
Caldwell calls this action inefficient and immoral. That doesn't amount to a general rule that every efficient action is moral. For example, someone could carry out a harmful plan efficiently. The argument hasn't committed itself to declaring such a plan moral merely because it was efficient.
- E
Caldwell doesn't reason that one of two options must be chosen and therefore the other must be rejected. The criticism is based on an available beneficial alternative. There could be many additional options, and we'd still face the same gap: why does passing up that benefit make the demolition immoral?
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.