Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S3 · Q16 Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was ordered to make restitution to a company because of a bungled construction job, even though the company had signed a written agreement prior to entering into the contract that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed.

Conclusion

It was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution from the contractor.

Evidence

Before the contract, the company had signed a written agreement that the contractor would not be financially liable for inadequate performance. Despite this, a court ordered the contractor to make restitution.

Evaluate

The ethicist concludes a moral judgment from the fact that the company had previously waived the right to seek financial liability. The argument needs a principle that ties "promised not to seek compensation" to "morally wrong to seek compensation."

Goal

The correct answer should state a principle that, when applied to these facts, generates the conclusion that seeking restitution after promising not to is morally wrong.

16.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist's reasoning?

  1. It is morally wrong for

    Bad Match

    This principle says it's morally wrong for one party to break an agreement only if the other party kept their end of the bargain. Here, the contractor's performance was bungled — i.e., the contractor arguably did not adequately perform. Under this principle, then, the company's breaking the no-liability agreement might not be morally wrong (because the contractor did not do its part). That conclusion is the opposite of the ethicist's. This principle doesn't support the conclusion; it works against it.

    10% picked this

  2. It is morally wrong to

    Out of Scope

    This principle is about whether the agent (the contractor) can pay for the action. The stimulus says nothing about the contractor's ability to make restitution. The ethicist's conclusion isn't based on the contractor being unable to pay; it's based on the company's prior agreement not to seek payment. This principle doesn't connect to the facts that drive the conclusion.

    1% picked this

  3. It is morally wrong for

    Bad Match

    This principle requires that the first person induced the other person to perform the action. The stimulus says nothing about the company inducing the contractor to do a bungled job. Without that inducement, the principle doesn't apply. The conclusion rests on the prior agreement, not on any claim of inducement.

    3% picked this

  4. It is morally wrong to

    Bad Match

    This principle ties moral wrongness to whether there was clear evidence of legal permissibility. The stimulus tells us a court actually ordered restitution, so the agreement to waive liability may not have been legally enforceable. Under this principle, that means the company's ignoring the agreement might be morally fine — opposite of the ethicist's conclusion. This works against the argument, not for it.

    16% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is morally wrong to

    Why this is right

    This principle is a clean fit. The company had promised, in writing, not to hold the contractor financially liable — i.e., to forgo compensation. Then it sought compensation anyway. Apply the principle directly: seeking compensation for an action that one has promised to forgo compensation for is morally wrong. The conclusion follows. This is the principle the ethicist's argument needs.

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    70% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free