Main conclusion confusion

We know that the end of an action is the intended outcome, rather than a mere by-product. And we know that the only reason for the action is the end's value. Then we are told that not all end's values will justify any means. Further, we know that there is no end whose value will justify every means. For these reasons, we conclude: "it is clear that nothing will justify a means except an end's value." So if a means is justified, then it is justified through an end's value. Remember that the first sentence tells us that the end of an action is the intended outcome. So, we can rewrite the conclusion to be: If it a means is justified, then it is justified through the value of the intended outcome. Answer choice (C) states, "One can justify an action only by appeal to the value of its intended outcome." We can rewrite this: if one can justify an action, then it justified through (i.e. by appeal to) the value of its intended outcome. Thus, the last sentence of the argument and answer choice (C) express the same thing. Answer choice (E) is incorrect because we never discuss "justifying the intended outcome of an action (i.e. the end of an action)." We only ever discuss justifying means, i.e. the way to get to the intended outcome. Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Thanks Naz!

Is the 'means' to an outcome not synonymous with the 'action' which leads to the outcome?

Yes, they are synonymous, however, (E) is specifying justifying the intended outcome, i.e. the end of the action, as opposed to the action. Do you see the difference? Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

So, to clarify - the main conclusion of this was the last sentence - " it is clear that nothing will justify a means except an end's value." How were you able to re-write the conclusion, per the below explanation, as "If it a means is justified, then it is justified through the value of the intended outcome" ?