Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT131 S1 Q9 Explanation

Philosopher: An action is morally

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

TopicsPrinciple-Conform

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Philosopher: An action is morally good if it both achieves the agent's intended goal and benefits the agent.

What this question is testing

Principle-Conform

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
9.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle cited

Answer choices

  1. Unsupported Relationship / Out of Scope1% picked this

    Colin chose to lie to the authorities questioning him, in an attempt to protect his friends. The authorities discovered his deception and punished Colin

    This argument concludes that the MG action was morally good. And this matches the necessary condition in the principle. But it doesn’t offer the sufficient conditions from the principle as support. This action fails to achieve its goal and it failed to benefit someone other than the giver. Furthermore, love is not within the scope of the principle.

  2. Negation3% picked this

    Derek prepared a steak dinner to welcome his new neighbors to the neighborhood. When they arrived for dinner, Derek found out that the newcomers

    This argument concludes that the ~MG action was not morally good and negates the necessary condition in the principle.

  3. Too Weak1% picked this

    Ellen worked overtime hoping to get a promotion. The extra money she earned allowed her family to take a longer vacation that year, but

    This argument does not meet both ~AIG + BSO sufficient conditions. While the action did benefit someone other than the giver, it did not achieve its intended goal.

  4. Negation3% picked this

    Louisa tried to get Henry into serious trouble by making it appear that he stole some expensive clothes from a store. But the store's

    This argument concludes that the ~MG action was not morally good and negates the necessary condition in the principle.

  5. Correct91% picked this

    Yolanda took her children to visit their grandfather because she wanted her children to enjoy their vacation and she knew they adored their grandfather.

    Why this is right

    This argument concludes that MG the action was morally good. And this matches the necessary condition in the principle. And the argument offers as AIG + BSO support the two sufficient conditions: an action that achieved its goal and benefited someone other than the giver.

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

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