Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 2 · Question 17

Incorrect. The intermediate conclusion states that legal responsibility in "some" cases depends on factors other than intentions, so this answer is close but makes a key change in the intermediate conclusion.

Incorrect. An example is an illustration, but the argument doesn't claim that legal responsibility includes moral responsibility. In fact, a key factor of moral responsibility—intention—isn't always present in legal responsibility.

Incorrect. The Ethicist never claims that one could be held morally responsible for something they are not legally responsible for.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Drunk driving penalties are more severe when someone is accidentally injured than when no one is injured
Legal responsibility - Depends sometimes on things other than intentions
Moral responsibility - Depends solely on intentions
Conclusion - Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are different

Answer Anticipation:
As with most Argument Structure questions that show up later in the section, this one has a bit of a convoluted argument structure. These complex arguments can be helped quite a bit by knowing some of the common argument structures on the exam, and knowing what elements make up these arguments.

Here, there are two common features that we can use to help us navigate. First, the argument provides definitions (at least, partial ones) for moral and legal responsibility. These definitions deal with the different ways that they treat the intentions behind actions, which is the second element we can focus on—this implied comparison. Finally, it uses a specific example by discussing the legal penalties for drunk driving.

With that in mind, we can then identify what elements are conclusions and which are premises (and if there are any intermediate conclusions).

The argument starts with a discussion of a specific scenario. It's very fact-based, so it's likely a premise. It then moves on to a definition of moral responsibility—and this type of definition is almost always a premise. Finally, it introduces a statement with a "Therefore" so it's clearly a conclusion. However, before it gets to the main point, it throws in a definition of legal responsibility. While this is included in the conclusion statement, it's a premise that establishes something that's true of legal responsibility! Be careful with these premises included in a conclusion, as they can throw off the way you view a conclusion.

At this point, the first statement takes on new meaning. Before, in discussing penalties, it stood in contrast to the discussion of moral responsibility. Now, however, with this premise about legal responsibility, we can see that the drunk driving scenario is related to it. Examples support generalizations, so the scenario supports this statement in the last sentence, thus making it an intermediate conclusion. And since the statement in question supports it, the answer should reflect that it's a premise supporting an intermediate conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the role of the statement in question. By highlighting a situation where there is legal responsibility (penalties) for something that was outside of the agent's intentions (the injury was "accidental[]"), the example supports the generalization about legal responsibility.

Key Takeaway:
This question is tricky for two reasons. First, a premise—in fact, an intermediate conclusion—is buried within the conclusion sentence. Second, the premise supporting that intermediate conclusion is several statements before the intermediate conclusion, and that premise also makes sense in the argument without the stated intermediate conclusion. For Argument Structure questions, though, we need to stick to what's written on the page.

Incorrect. The example discusses penalties—legal responsibility—not moral responsibility.