Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q2 Pacifist: It is immoral to

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

Pacifist: It is immoral to do anything that causes harm to another person.

Conclusion

It is immoral to threaten to use force, even in self-defense.

Evidence (since)

It is immoral to do anything that causes harm to another person.

Using force causes harm to another person

Evaluate

The two premises have a common concept, causes harm to another person. Our Inference-brain should read these first two ideas and synthesize them. It's a conditional rule and a specific case to which we can apply that rule.

RULE: if causes harm, immoral SPECIFIC: using-force causes harm INFER: using-force is immoral

Once we've merged the two premises into one, it's easier to hear the gap:

Using force is immoral. Thus, threatening to use force (even in self-defense) is immoral.

Goal

Look for something like, .

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the pacifist's reasoning?

Given the potential harm caused
Out of Scope: aggressive Too Weak
This argument doesn't get into subtypes of use of force, aggressive vs. non-aggressive. And this answer is so weak and wishy-washy ("always vague") that it doesn't sound like the sort of answer we pick on Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, or Sufficient Assumption. We need to know that a threat can be immoral, and this answer isn't helping us with that at all.
2% picked this
Correct
It is immoral to threaten
Why this is right
The form, "It is A to be B", is always diagrammed B ? A For example, "It is wrong to lie": Lie ? Wrong So this answer is saying, immoral ? immoral to threaten to do X to do X We know that it's immoral to use force (because force causes harm, which makes it immoral). So we can apply this rule and derive that "it's immoral to threaten to use force".
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% picked this
It is immoral to do
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: more harm than good This provides us with this rule: X causes more ? immoral to harm than good do X We're trying to prove that it's immoral to "threaten to use force". Do we know if "threatening to use force" causes more harm than good? No we don't. Since we don't know if this trigger applies to "threatening to use force", this answer does nothing for us.
3% picked this
Whether a threat made in
Too Weak / Mixed Impact
This is insanely wishy-washy ("It depends ..."), which is the opposite of what we want on Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, or Sufficient Assumption. This also gives us a way to Weaken the conclusion, since it insinuates that sometimes threats made in self-defense are not immoral, depending on the circumstances. That would contradict the conclusion, which says that threatening to use force is immoral even when done for self-defense.
1% picked this
It is immoral to carry
Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match
This provides us with this rule: threatening to do ? carrying out threat X is immoral of X is immoral We're trying to prove that it's "immoral to threaten to use force". This rule is putting "immoral to threaten" on the left side, so it's of no use to us. We can only conclude what's on the right side of an arrow. A conditional statement is saying, "If you know the left side is true, then it proves that the right side is also true".
8% 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