Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S4 · Q7 Philosopher: Both the consequences

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

Philosopher: Both the consequences and the motives of human actions have bearing on the moral worth of those actions.

Conclusion

Moral agency requires free will

Evidence

Moral agency requires a desire to conform to a principle

Evaluate

The nonetheless that starts the 2nd sentence shows us that the first sentence is not part of the argument core. The because tells us that the 2nd half of the 2nd sentence is our premise, which makes the 1st half of the 2nd sentence our conclusion.

For those of us not acquainted with the nerdy philosophical vernacular of "moral agent / moral agency", it basically means "a capacity for making moral decisions". We would hold a 12 year old accountable for hitting the dog in the face, because she has moral agency, whereas we wouldn't hold her 1 year old brother accountable for hitting the dog in the face, because he doesn't yet have moral agency.

The good news is that we could solve this argument formally, even if we didn't understand the constituent ideas.

If we're concluding "moral agent must have free will", we either use our knowledge that must = Right Side and write down Moral agent → free will

Or we use our knowledge that Required things go on Right to write Moral Agent → Free will (requires)

For the premise, we either use our knowledge that Without = If-Not and write down ~Desire to Conform To a Principle → Can't be Moral Agent

Or we think through Required things go on Right and write down Moral Agent → Desire to Conform To a Principle

Goal

Since the conclusion wants to build this logic connection: Moral Agent --------------------------> Free Will

and the premise has provided us with this: Moral Agent ----> Desire to Conform to Principle

our missing link would be this: Desire to --------> Free Will Conform to Principle

Or more conversationally,

7.

The philosopher's argument requires the assumption that

  1. one cannot be a moral

    Out of Scope: consequences

    This says Moral Agent → Concern for consequences The author is only thinking that Free Will and Desire to Conform to Principle are requirements of moral agency. She hasn't mentioned anything suggesting she's assuming that Concern for Consequences is a third requirement.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    desiring to conform to a

    Why this is right

    This connects the premise, "Moral agency requires a desire to conform to principle", with the conclusion "Moral agency requires free will".

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

    86% picked this

  3. nobody who acts without taking

    Lots of Problems

    1. It's too strong - the author doesn't have to think that "every single person who acts without taking consequences into consideration is not free". 2. Detail drift - whether or not we have free will is a different topic from whether or not we are free. A determinist (someone who thinks all our actions are just products of cause/effect) would say someone in jail is not free, someone out of jail is free, and that neither of them have free will. 3. Dealing with wording that isn't even part of the argument - consequences came from the first sentence, which wasn't part of the argument. The nonetheless pivot meant that the author was not using that first sentence to draw her conclusion; the because claim is the only premise in her argument.

    2% picked this

  4. it is impossible to have

    Trap

    Detail Drift - desires vs. desire to obey principle Too Strong: impossible This is a very extreme claim: "if you have desires, then you're automatically a moral agent". Our author would probably grant that cows have desires. They desire pasture on which to graze and shade when it's too hot. Is he assuming then that cows are moral agents? Of course not. Also, we wanted to connect "has desire to conform to principle" with "free will", not just "has desires". The former is something we only assume is something mature humans can do, whereas the latter is something that humans share with babies and animals.

    2% picked this

  5. it is impossible to perform

    Detail Drift

    Detail Drift: desiring to conform vs. conforming Too Strong: impossible The author is saying we can't judge you as a moral agent unless we think that you desire to conform to some principle. If you're not wanting to adhere to the Ten Commandments, for example, then I shouldn't be judging your Ten Commandment morality. "Desiring to conform to a principle" is talking about wanting to be moral. Simply conforming to a principle could just mean you were accidentally moral. Is our author promising that "every morally worth action conforms to a principle"? No, nothing so extreme was said or implied.

    7% 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