Top Law Schools

"Nothing can justify the intended outcome of an action except the value of that action’s actual outcome."

Is this a correct "if...then" rewording and thus diagram?

"If an action can be justified, then one must appeal to the action’s end."

justified -> Value of outcome
~Value of outcome -> ~justified

Am I close?

Seems right to me.

youknowryan wrote:"Nothing can justify the intended outcome of an action except the value of that action’s actual outcome."

Is this a correct "if...then" rewording and thus diagram?

"If an action can be justified, then one must appeal to the action’s end."

justified -> Value of outcome (enough)
~Value of outcome (not enough) -> ~justified

Am I close?

Breaking it down makes it easier to me, I see it as: Except the value of an action's actual outcome, Nothing can justify the intended outcome of an action. I can't exactly diagram it, but I understand what it means...your diagram looks right I think...

Your translation is incorrect.

Nothing can justify the intended outcome of an action except the value of that action's actual outcome.

"intended outcome of an action" cannot be reduced to "an action"; with respect to this question (PT23 S3 Q25) it is the end of an action, not the means of an action, or an action simply. The stimulus's conclusion -- "nothing will justify a means except an end's value" -- is concerned with justification of the means. Answer (E) is concerned with justification of the end.

@ Kurst,

I changed it on purpose, I was more concerned with the conditional structure and I try and not use LSAT materials in their original form since that is frowned down upon here. Still damned good analysis of the question. I compared it to my notes of that Q to make sure I didn't miss anything.

@ Everyone else,

Thanks for the help!