PT 50 section 2 #12

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

PT 50 section 2 #12

Postby wjun15 » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:42 am

Okay I just have a question regarding strengthen vs justify the conclusion questions...

The correct answer is A, , but if this question were a justify the conclusion, then would E be the correct answer since, if knowing the consequences are required for knowing someone acted morally, it justifies that we should evaluate the consequences of an action rather than its morality...?

What I dont really get is the part where it says we should evaluate the consequences of an action. The stimulus doesnt give any reason WHY we should look at the consequences, so doesn't he/she have to explain why? (hence choice E?)

thanks

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 50 section 2 #12

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:37 am

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it) answer choice (E) would not justify the argument.

The argument consists of a premise, a subsidiary conclusion, and a primary conclusion

One cannot know the motives
-------------------------
One cannot know if it's moral
-------------------------
Evaluate the consequences

On a sufficient assumption (what I think you mean by "justify") we would need to establish the primary conclusion. But since this is just a "most helps to justify" question, we can support either the subsidiary conclusion or the primary conclusion.

To support the subsidiary conclusion

If one doesn't know the motives, then one doesn't know if the action is moral - best expressed in answer choice (A) in the form of a contrapositive.

Answer choice (E) says if you know something is moral, then you must be able to evaluate the consequences. Remember "unless" negates the sufficient condition when put into if/then form. So while (E) sounds close, it actually can't be used to justify the argument because it's sufficient condition is not the same as the subsidiary conclusion.

If you changed the word "cannot" to "can" in answer choice (E), then it would have worked!

I hope this helps clear this one up! Let me know if you still need a little more help with it...

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 50 section 2 #12

Postby wjun15 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:56 am

okay so...

Is it incorrect for me to say: "we should evaluate the consequences because it will tell us whether someone's action is moral" ?

I might be over-thinking it...is it only correct to say : "we should evaluate the consequences of an action (without telling us why we should look at consequences)...I mean, in order for him to recommend evaluating consequences, doesnt the author have to say why we should, instead of just saying we should because we can't see if someone's action is moral?

thanks for the help!

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 50 section 2 #12

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:11 am

Not exactly. It doesn't need to be the case that an evaluation of the consequences will allow you to determine whether someone was acting morally. The argument simply uses the evidence that we cannot know whether someone is acting morally, to justify the conclusion that we should therefore evaluate the consequences of an action rather than it's morality.

As to your second question, you're right, the conclusion is not established. In order to make a valid conclusion that we should evaluate the consequences of an action, we must be presented with evidence relevant to evaluating consequences.

In this case, the final conclusion is never justified. Not even when we select the answer choice. The reason is that the correct answer helps to justify the argument not by supporting the main conclusion of the argument, but rather supports the subsidiary conclusion.

I know it's tough, and for the most part, you won't have to worry about the difference between supporting a subsidiary/main conclusion. But for this question it's essential.

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 50 section 2 #12

Postby wjun15 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:30 pm

okay, thank you so much ^ that clarified everything!

dgm5028
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: PT 50 section 2 #12

Postby dgm5028 » Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:45 pm

I apologize for restarting this thread but I just completed pt50 and can't seem to grasp this question.

Is (E) wrong because it is essential saying in the contrapositive that "if we are to evaluate morality of a given action, we must know the consequences." But because the stimulus states that it is impossible to know the morality of an action, (E) can never be realized. We can never know the morality of an action, so (E) simply never can be true.

If that is correct, then how does (A) work? (A) states that "it is essential to know the intention of an act to evaluate its morality". But hasn't it been establish that the evaluation of morality for a given action is impossible?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, jen203, latif and 15 guests