Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q16 Moralist: Immoral actions are those

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

Moralist: Immoral actions are those that harm other people.

Conclusion

Those who act immorally do so only through ignorance of some of their actions' consequences rather than through a character defect.

Evidence (since)

Immoral actions harm other people but also eventually harm those who perform them.

Evaluate

If we were just pre-phrasing a Linking idea, we'd go with a simple "If Premise, then Conclusion" form:

if an immoral action is then the actor going to eventually → does that action harm the actor due to ignorance not character defect

If we want to try to think of a possible objection, we can switch to our Debating Mindset:

Given that ... an immoral action will eventually harm the person who does it,

How could we say that ... people who act immorally are not ignorant of their actions consequences?

In other words, is it possible that someone performs immoral action X, even while being clear-eyed about the fact that this action will ultimately harm them?

Sure! I'm known to smoke a lot and drink a bit, even though I know those actions are ultimately harming me. People are self-destructive sometimes. Or maybe we're just convinced that the harm the action causes is outweighed by some gain we get out of it. Or maybe we're not ignorant about the eventual consequences, we're just such stupid shortsighted creatures that we do the bad action anyway (like doing things that exacerbate climate change).

Goal

Look for a Linking answer saying, .

Or look for a Defender answer ruling out an objection. Something like, .

16.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the moralist's argument?

People ignorant of their actions’
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: morally responsible Too Strong: cannot The author never discusses moral responsibility, so she her logic isn't committing her to any views on that topic.
4% picked this
An action harms those who
Too Strong: only if
Conditional answers should primarily be judged by asking ourselves, "Did the author make this move?" The only move the author made was, "If an immoral action ultimately harms the actor, then the actor must be ignorant of the action's consequences." This is saying, "If an action doesn't harm others, then it can't harm the actor". The author never made any move that resembles this.
2% picked this
Only someone with a character
Contradicted, if anything Too Strong: only
Did the author make a reasoning move like this? If your action would ? then you have a eventually harm others character defect Definitely not. The author is never concluding that someone has a character defect. In fact, she concludes that people performing immoral actions don't have a character defect causing that behavior.
13% picked this
Correct
Those who, in acting immorally,
Why this is right
This has that lovable quality on Necessary Assumption of ruling-out something with the word "not". These answers are the ones that are most ripe for the Negation Test. If we negate this and it turns into a weakening objection, we'll pick it. If it doesn't, we won't. Does it hurt the argument to say, "Yo, author -- people who act immorally and eventually harm themselves because of that do intend that harm"? Sure! It basically refutes the conclusion. (The correct answer, when negated, doesn't need to refute the conclusion. It just needs to weaken. But oh-my-does-this weaken!) The author was saying that immoral actors are doing these actions only through ignorance of the fact that the action will have the consequence of eventually harming them. This answer's negation is saying, "Nope -- they're intentionally harming themselves. They're not ignorant of that consequence. They're aware of it and are seeking it."
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
69% picked this
None of those who knowingly
Too Strong: none
This also offers a conditional relationship: If you knowingly ? then you have a harm yourself character defect This doesn't match at all. First of all, the premise isn't about knowingly harming yourself. The immoral action will eventually harm you, but the author thinks you're ignorance of that consequence, not knowingly doing it. Secondly, the conclusion does not say that someone has a character defect. It says that someone is not doing something because of a character defect.
11% 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