PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 2
Campaign manager: In campaign speeches, our candidate has(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AEthically questionable acts(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is better(13 more words not shown)
- CLegitimate ends obtained(5 more words not shown)
- DIt is possible(10 more words not shown)
- EVoters can best(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A policy can offer something valuable and still have a cost. Imagine a candidate promising a new public program while barely mentioning the taxes needed to pay for it. Or imagine a candidate promising lower taxes without discussing which services would be cut. In either case, talking only about the appealing side leaves voters with an incomplete picture.
That is the sort of omission the campaign manager is defending. The manager doesn't say there are no unpleasant consequences. Being fully candid means being fully honest. The argument is that revealing all of the consequences would keep the candidate from being elected, and getting this candidate elected is important because the proposed agenda is so good.
Now we have a real question about priorities. Is it more important to be fully honest, even at the cost of losing? Or can the good the candidate hopes to accomplish justify withholding information along the way? We don't have to settle that ethical question for ourselves. We need to see which side the manager takes.
What we’re looking for
The manager chooses the result: the chance to implement a positive agenda can excuse the questionable campaign behavior. For the principle that supports this reasoning, I'd look for that connection. A good outcome can sometimes justify the way we get there, even when the method would otherwise deserve criticism.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Match both parts. The 'ethically questionable acts' are the candidate's omissions about unpleasant consequences. The 'good consequences' are the opportunity to help implement a positive political agenda. A allows the latter to justify the former, which is exactly the defense the manager needs. Its 'sometimes' does not give politicians permission to do anything for any goal; it supports this kind of justification.
- B
This chooses the other side of our ethical question. Tell the full truth and accept losing rather than cross an ethical line to win. That might be a position someone could defend, but it would challenge this manager's justification instead of supporting it.
- C
Here a bad method spoils the goal it achieves: an otherwise legitimate end becomes illegitimate because of how it was obtained. The manager argues the other way, using the positive agenda to excuse the method. For example, C would treat the otherwise worthwhile agenda as spoiled by the deception used to pursue it. That cannot serve as the manager's excuse for the deception.
- D
This concerns whether someone can accomplish an agenda without being trusted. Even if that is possible, why would it make withholding information justified? We also aren't told whether these omissions will cost the candidate public trust. Feasibility despite distrust is different from the ethical defense being offered.
- E
This explains the value of fully informing voters. But the manager is trying to justify doing less than that. Showing that informed voters make better decisions does not establish why the candidate's positive agenda excuses withholding the downsides.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.