PrepTest 146, Section 1, Question 14
Ethicist: The general principle—if one ought to do(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AIf a person(25 more words not shown)
- BOnly an event(16 more words not shown)
- CIf there is(19 more words not shown)
- DThe obligation created(15 more words not shown)
- EIf an event(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
'Should' and 'can' are different ideas. Telling someone what they ought to do doesn't make it physically possible. Still, we need to see how this particular example challenges the rule that a person who ought to do something must be able to do it.
What we’re looking for
My first reaction to the traffic jam is to wonder whether the person could have planned ahead. But the example expressly makes the jam unforeseen and the on-time arrival impossible. We have to work with that case, not replace it with an ordinary delay the person could have avoided. I'm not yet sure what required assumption the choices will offer. Let's keep the two parts of the claimed exception in view: what the person ought to do and what the person can actually do.
Working the answers
- A
This says every failure to do one's duty is a failure to keep a promise. The example involves a promise, but the argument doesn't need all obligations to come from promises. Someone could have other duties without ever having promised to carry them out. A makes a broad claim about the source of every unfulfilled obligation when we need to understand this particular example.
- B
'Only' sets a requirement for being excused: without an event like an unforeseen traffic jam, there can be no excuse. That doesn't tell us whether the person in this example actually is excused. It also doesn't tell us whether the duty remains when keeping the promise becomes impossible. The argument doesn't need this general restriction on what can count as an excuse.
- C
This offers a rule about things a person ought not do: they must be capable of avoiding those actions. The ethicist is trying to give a case where someone ought to do something but can't. C doesn't establish what obligation the person still has to meet the friend. It gives us another general rule, not the missing link in this example.
- DCorrect
Here's the connection: the promise must still obligate the person to arrive on time even though arriving on time is impossible. The example then contains both parts we need: the person ought to do it, and the person cannot do it. That challenges the proposed rule.
What if becoming unable to keep the promise removed the obligation? Then the person would neither be able nor obligated to arrive on time. We wouldn't have a case of 'ought to, but can't' at all. The ethicist therefore needs the duty to survive the inability to fulfill it. 'Obligation' supplies the 'ought' part of the example; the unforeseen traffic jam supplies the 'can't' part.
- E
Whether making the promise was a mistake is a different question. The argument starts with a promise already made and asks what follows when keeping it becomes impossible. It doesn't need to claim that a person should never make a promise that an unforeseen event might prevent them from keeping.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.