PrepTest 117

[lcid:3567] Prep Test 117 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Moralist: Immoral actions are Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Stimulus Summary

Immoral action = Actions that harm others
Immoral actions → Eventually harm person committing it
Therefore - Immoral actions are driven by ignorance of some consequences

Answer Anticipation

A few notes on the Summary before we anticipate an answer!
First, the opening line here creates an equivalence between two ideas. If you treated this as a biconditional, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Second, the conditional premise could have been viewed in a nonconditioanl manner - the important things is that you noted the connection between immoral actions and a consequence of that action (harming the person who committed it).
Finally, note that we didn’t include the “rather than…” in our conclusion. The reason for that is because the phrase is meaningless here. If the conclusion said that ignorance was a “more likely” explanation than character defect, then it would be comparing the likelihood of just those two possible explanations, and it would be relevant. However, in stating that the action is done “only through ignorance,” the conclusion actually precludes any other explanation, and thus anything could have been written after “rather than” without changing the meaning.
With all that said, this argument brings up motives, action, and consequences, so the flaw will almost certainly deal with those issues, as we’ve seen many times on the LSAT. Here, the conclusion deals with a motive of a sort - ignorance vs. character defect. Why? Because of the consequence - immoral acts hurt the person performing them.
As we know, though, consequences don’t determine motives - you could intend something completely different from the outcome when performing an action. Since the premise is about a consequence and the conclusion about the motive, the assumption connects those two ideas:
If someone acts in a way that harms themselves, then they’re acting out of ignorance of that harmful consequence.
Or, in other words, someone wouldn’t intentionally act in a way that would harm themselves.

Answer choices

  1. A
    People ignorant of their Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    While the argument is about the morality of actions, it never discusses moral responsibility, so this answer is out of scope.
  2. B
    An action harms those Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer is too broad. While this may be true of immoral actions, it doesn’t need to be true of all types of actions.
  3. C
    Only someone with a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer runs counter to the argument, which blames ignorance of consequences for immoral actions, not character defects.
  4. D
    Those who, in acting Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer connects the intent to the consequences. Or, rather, disconnects it. The stimulus relied on assuming that a person wouldn’t intentionally act to harm themselves, and this answer establishes that. If people taking certain actions do intend to harm themselves (cutting off their nose to spite their face, for example), then the argument falls apart.
  5. E
    None of those who Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Let’s rephrase this to get rid of the double negative - If you knowingly harm yourself, then you don’t lack a character defect...which is better stated as - If you knowingly harm yourself, then you have a character defect. First, the premises don’t establish that anyone is knowingly harming themselves. In fact, the argument assumes the opposite! Second, this answer allows the conclusion to be drawn that someone has a character defect, which is very much not what the conclusion here states.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why is D correct? 1 reply

    Started by Shula

  • A & E?? 1 reply

    Started by JazaneElaine

  • Why not E 3 replies

    Started by HannahNg

View all discussions Start a discussion