PrepTest 129

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
You can't tell if someone has ulterior motives
Intermediate conclusion - You can't tell if someone's acting morally
Main point - You should judge actions by consequences, not its morality

Answer Anticipation:
Almost all Strengthen (Principle) questions present a judgment in the conclusion that needs to be connected to the details in the premises. This one, however, has an intermediate conclusion, complicating things—we can look to gaps between the premises and both conclusions to find an assumption that can be addressed with a principle.

Looking at the premise and intermediate conclusion, we can see that there's a gap between motive and morality. It uses the impossibility of determining motive to conclude the impossibility of determining morality. That assumes that motive determines morality, and so a principle connecting those two ideas would be correct.

Looking at the intermediate conclusion and main point, there's a gap there, as well. While the intermediate conclusion does posit that you can't tell if someone is acting morally, that doesn't mean that the action needs to be judged on its consequences. There could be something else that you can base your judgment on other than morality. Any answer establishing that such an alternative doesn't exist would similarly help to justify the reasoning here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the premise to the intermediate conclusion, thus helping to justify the overall argument. That initial portion of the argument jumps from intent to morality, and this answer choice justifies that jump.

Key Takeaway:
It's rare for a Principle question to have an intermediate conclusion but, as with any question featuring one, we should look at both the gap between the premises and that conclusion, and that conclusion and the main point, to find assumptions that could lead us to the correct answer.

Incorrect. Praise- and blameworthiness is out of scope of the argument as it's never discussed. If anything, this suggests an alternative means of judging actions besides consequences, weakening the intermediate conclusion/main point connection.

Incorrect. Knowing your own motives is out of scope in an argument about judging the actions of others.

Incorrect. The argument is solely about judging actions, not people, so this answer about the morality of a person behind an action is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is about what happens when you don't know the consequences (or do know the morality) of an action (not Know consequences → not Morality; Morality → Consequences). Since the argument talks about a situation where you don't know the morality of an action but you do know the consequences, this answer doesn't apply since neither sufficient condition is met.