Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S2 · Q15 Zachary: One would have to be blind

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

Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny that people who believe a course of action to be morally obligatory for them have both the right and the duty to pursue that action, and that no one else has any right to stop them from doing so.

Zach's Principle

If you believe action X is morally obligatory for you, then you have the right and the duty to pursue action X, and no one has the right to stop you from pursuing action X.

Cynthia's Objection

What if person A feels a moral obligation to prevents artworks from being destroyed, while person B feels a moral obligation to destroy pornographic artworks?

Evaluate

Cynthia's objection is saying that,

So the art-preserver would have the right to preserve pornographic art, which would infringe on the art-destroyer's right to destroy that pornographic art.

Goal

We need another example in which one person feels a moral obligation to do X, and another person feels a moral obligation to do not-X.

That preserves the logical force of the objection.

15.

Which one of the following, if substituted for the scenario invoked by Cynthia, would preserve the force of her argument?

  1. a medical researcher who feels

    Only One is Morally Obliged

    Person A feels a moral obligation to do X (not claim sole credit for work). Person B doesn't feel a moral obligation. We're looking for a situation where A feels morally obliged to do X, and B feels morally obliged to do not-X.

    1% picked this

  2. a manufacturer who feels a

    Moral Obligations Don't Conflict

    We're looking for a situation where A feels morally obliged to do X, and B feels morally obliged to do not-X. Both people here feel moral obligations, but their impulses don't contradict. In the original example, the moral compulsion of the art-saver to prevent the destruction of artwork contradicted the moral compulsion of the art-destroyer to commit the destruction of artwork. Here, the two actions are "recall dangerous products" and "expose product defects". Those are actually pretty compatible cousins.

    8% picked this

  3. an investment banker who believes

    Neither is Morally Obliged

    This answer does present contradictory moral obligations, but they don't belong to the investment bankers. The investment bankers just have conflicting beliefs about what the government is morally obliged to do.

    21% picked this

  4. an architect who feels a

    Unclear Conflict

    We're looking for a situation where A feels morally obliged to do X, and B feels morally obliged to do not-X. Here, we're dealing with a person and a corporation. Despite what the US Supreme Court says, corporations aren't people, so this is already a little dubious. These moral obligations also don't clearly contradict each other. Person A feels morally obliged to design only energy-efficient buildings. A contradictory person would feel morally obliged to make sure some non-energy efficient buildings are also designed. But "Person B" (the corporation) is saying that its primary moral obligation is to maximize shareholder profits. We would be bringing in a lot of outside assumptions if we think that "maximizing profits" contradicts "designing only energy-efficient buildings".

    6% picked this

  5. Correct

    a health inspector who feels

    Why this is right

    We're looking for a situation where A feels morally obliged to do X, and B feels morally obliged to do not-X. The inspector feels morally obliged to prevent homeowners from having more than the legal number of cats. The cat-lady, excuse me - I mean, the homeowner, feels morally obliged to take in more than the legal number of cats.

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

    64% 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