PrepTest 154, Section 1, Question 11
It is morally praiseworthy to be honest only(51 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn above follows(9 more words not shown)
- AAn action motivated(10 more words not shown)
- BSome actions that(7 more words not shown)
- CAn action performed(15 more words not shown)
- DThe moral praiseworthiness(19 more words not shown)
- EMorality demands that(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't Downing have two reasons for telling the truth?
We know he wanted to protect his own well-being. Maybe telling the judge about his partner's fraud helped him do that. But he could also care about being honest because he thinks honesty is morally right. The passage hasn't told us that those motives can't coexist.
The opening rule makes motive important: honesty earns moral praise only if it comes from respect for morality. Telling the truth by itself isn't enough. To deny Downing that praise under this rule, we need to establish that his honesty didn't come from respect for morality. Evidence of another motive doesn't yet establish that.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to make the conclusion follow. Close the gap by ruling out mixed motives here: an action motivated by concern for oneself cannot also be performed out of respect for morality. We already know Downing had the self-interested motive. If the two motives cannot coexist, he lacks the motive required for praise.
Working the answers
- A
Not deserving condemnation isn't the same as deserving praise. An act could be neither something we condemn nor something we praise. This answer concerns whether self-interested actions deserve blame, while the conclusion denies Downing moral credit for his honesty. It doesn't rule out the mixed motives we identified.
- B
This could be true without settling Downing's case. Some honest actions might lack the required moral motive, while his honest action had that motive along with self-interest. The conclusion would imply that at least one honest act wasn't praiseworthy, but establishing that some acts fit that description doesn't establish that this particular act does.
- CCorrect
This rules out the combination we were considering. If an action comes from respect for morality, it cannot also be motivated by concern for oneself. Downing's action was motivated by concern for himself, so it cannot have been performed out of respect for morality. He therefore lacks the motive the first sentence requires for moral praise.
We aren't endorsing this account of morality in real life. We're adding a rule that makes the stated conclusion follow from the stated facts.
- D
Telling us to consider the actor's circumstances doesn't tell us how to evaluate Downing's motives. We could consider his circumstances and find both self-interest and respect for morality. D leaves the missing exclusion unstated, so it doesn't establish that he fails the requirement for praise.
- E
A duty to be honest, even at a personal cost, doesn't settle why Downing was honest or whether he deserves praise. Someone can meet a duty for more than one reason. E never rules out his acting from respect for morality while also protecting himself.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.