LSAT 117 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Pacifist: It is immoral to do anything that causes …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: It’s immoral to threaten to use force, even for self-defense.

REASONING: It’s immoral to do anything that causes harm to others. Using force causes harm to others.

ANALYSIS: The reasoning says: Using force is immoral.

The conclusion says: Threatening to use force is immoral.

We need a principle that justifies this. Something like: If it is immoral to do something, it’s also immoral to threaten to do that thing.

___________

1. Whether the line between self-defense and aggression is vague is irrelevant. The argument doesn’t depend on any ambiguity between the two.
2. CORRECT. This justifies it. If using force is immoral, and we have this principle, then threatening to use force is also immoral.
3. The pacifist never argues in terms of weighing harms and benefits. The argument says any act that causes harm is immoral.
4. This says the morality of threats depends on the circumstances. That weakens the argument because the pacifist reaches an absolute conclusion.
5. Reversed. This says: If threat immoral → doing it is also immoral. We need: if doing it is immoral → threatening it is also immoral.