PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 21
Ethicist: It is morally right to reveal a(53 more words not shown)
The principles cited by the(13 more words not shown)
- AKathryn revealed a(45 more words not shown)
- BJae admitted in(48 more words not shown)
- CA doctor informed(38 more words not shown)
- DPhil was arrested(47 more words not shown)
- EAfter writing a(38 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
This ethicist sets a high bar for calling the disclosure of a secret morally right. There must be a legal obligation to disclose it, and doing so must not harm the person disclosing it. Fail either requirement and the action isn't morally right under this rule. Meet both, however, and we still haven't been told that the action is morally right. Requirements aren't a complete permission slip.
The second rule gives us a different test: revealing a secret is morally wrong when the person promised not to reveal it and disclosure is likely to harm others. We need both pieces. A promise alone doesn't trigger this rule, nor does likely harm alone.
What we’re looking for
We're applying these principles to a case. Go slowly enough to check the actual facts against the actual requirements. A story can sound morally appealing without satisfying the ethicist's rules.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Kathryn has no legal obligation to reveal the secret. That fails a requirement for calling her action morally right, so the conclusion follows. The likely benefits and absence of a promise don't repair that failure. Those details may sound reassuring, but the first rule still requires a legal obligation. Notice the precise conclusion: her action was not morally right. We don't need to add the stronger claim that the second rule establishes it as morally wrong.
- B
The attorney has no legal obligation to reveal the confession, so the first rule prevents us from calling the disclosure morally right. B reaches the opposite conclusion. We don't need any outside rule about lawyers or confidentiality; the stated lack of a legal obligation settles this comparison.
- C
We aren't told that Judy promised to keep the diagnosis secret. Being advised not to disclose it isn't the same as making a promise. We also have only the statement that disclosure sometimes harms recovery, not that it is likely to harm her father. Both parts needed to apply the second rule are missing.
- D
Phil meets the legal-obligation requirement, but that alone doesn't establish that his disclosure is morally right. The possibility of endangering himself doesn't prove that he actually will be harmed; it also doesn't establish that he won't be. Even if we knew both required conditions were met, the first rule still wouldn't guarantee the conclusion D draws.
- E
The journalist keeps the secret. Our principles concern the moral status of revealing a secret, not the moral status of refusing to reveal it. We can't use a restriction on disclosure as a complete rule declaring nondisclosure morally right.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.