Logical Reasoning

PT3 · S4 · Q24 It has been claimed that an action

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

It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if it benefits another person and was performed with that intention; whereas an action that harms another person is morally bad either if such harm was intended or if reasonable forethought would have shown that the action was likely to cause harm.

Principle

only if = right side, if = left side

Action morally → Benefits another person good and performed w/ that intent

Someone else harmed and → morally bad (Harm intended OR reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm)

Evaluate

We always want the "judgy", normative language on the right side of the rule. In this paragraph, the normative language is about whether actions are morally good or bad, so we need to contrapose the first rule.

Doesn't benefit someone else action not or → morally good Not performed w/ that intent

The 2nd rule is a little sneaky because it's not about any action. It's specifically have "an action that harms another person".

We could have added that concept to the trigger, if we prefer thinking about it that way:

.

Goal

We have rule 1 which has the power to prove something is "not morally good" (which doesn't mean the same thing as morally bad. Actions can be amoral, neither good nor bad).

We have rule 2 which has the power to prove that a harmful action is "morally bad".

We'll get rid of any answer that's trying to conclude something other than "not morally good" or "morally bad".

And based on the conclusion, we'll know whether to look at the trigger for rule 1 or rule 2.

24.

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

  1. Pamela wrote a letter attempting

    Action Wasn't Harmful

    This is concluding "morally bad", so we'll look at the possible ways to trigger that. 1. Harm was intended or 2. Reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm Does the argument establish either of those? Yes, the argument establishes that Pamela intended to cause trouble, i.e. harm. The problem is the argument also establishes that she didn't cause trouble. Our 2nd rule only pertains to "an action that harms another person". Pamela's action didn't harm any other person, so we can't use the 2nd rule to conclude the action was morally bad.

    36% picked this

  2. In order to secure a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally good", which we are powerless to do. Rule 1 allows us to prove that certain actions are NOT morally good. Rule 2 allows us to prove that certain harmful actions are morally bad. Doesn't benefit someone else action not or ? morally good Not performed w/ that intent Harm intended or ? harmful action morally bad Reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm

    3% picked this

  3. Intending to help her elderly

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally good", which we are powerless to do. It's also concluding that an action had "bad consequences", which we have no way of proving. Rule 1 allows us to prove that certain actions are NOT morally good. Rule 2 allows us to prove that certain harmful actions are morally bad. Doesn't benefit someone else action not or ? morally good Not performed w/ that intent Harm intended or ? harmful action morally bad Reasonable forethought would have shown action likely to cause harm

    4% picked this

  4. Marilees, asked by a homeless

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally bad", so we know we need to look at the 2nd rule. First, as we learned from (A), we have to establish that an action caused harm to someone else. Marilees' action of giving the homeless man her sandwich did cause harm to the homeless man, in the sense that it led to him choking on the sandwich. Can we trigger either of the conditions in rule 2? 1. was harm intended? (no it makes no sense to say Marilees was trying to harm the homeless man by giving him a sandwich) 2. would reasonable forethought have shown that giving him a sandwich would likely result in choking? (no, that's not a likely outcome of eating a sandwich)

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    Jonathan agreed to watch his

    Why this is right

    This is trying to conclude that an action was "morally bad", so we know we need to look at the 2nd rule. As we learned from (A), we have to establish that an action caused harm to someone else. Jonathan's action of ignoring his niece while she ran into the street did cause her harm (she got hit by a bike). Can we trigger either of the conditions in rule 2? 1. was harm intended? (no, we're told he intended no harm) 2. would reasonable forethought have shown that ignoring a three year old you're supposed to be watching could likely cause harm? Yeah, I guess so. Ultimately we're stuck with this answer as best available. It's certainly not fair to say reasonable forethought would tell us, "If we ignore the 3 year old we're watching, they're likely to run into the street and get hit by a bike". That's too specific and exotic a scenario to be likely. But it's fair to say that reasonable forethought would tell us, "If I ignore the 3 year old I'm supposed to be watching, that could be likely to cause harm". This test question was probably written by the parent of a young child, because they're taking it as common sense that if you don't monitor a 3 year old's behavior and whereabouts, then harm will likely result. That seems pretty strong, but it's definitely fair to say, "You should know that if you're the one responsible for watching a 3 year old and you start ignoring what they're doing, you're creating a situation that is ripe for trouble. The kid might fall down the stairs or color on the walls or eat something that isn't food."

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

    55% 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