LSAT 135 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q8

LR Question 8 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Caldwell: The government recently demolished …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The government’s decision to demolish the former naval base was immoral.

REASONING: It included many useful facilities that could’ve been used to benefit the community.

ANALYSIS: So keeping the naval base and using it for the community would’ve benefited everyone. And because they instead chose to demolish it, it was immoral.

It seems like the author’s saying that if there’s another option that would’ve benefited everyone more, then choosing a different option is immoral.

But that doesn’t necessarily follow.

There could’ve been perfectly legitimate reasons for demolition. Maybe the building was unsafe, or maintenance costs were enormous, or there was environmental contamination, or there were redevelopment plans, and the list could go on and on and on.

More importantly, even if keeping the base would have been better, it doesn’t automatically make demolishing it immoral.

Imagine I have $1,000. Donating it to charity might do more good than buying myself a new laptop. But that doesn’t mean buying the laptop is immoral.

___________

1. CORRECT. Just because another option would have produced better outcomes doesn’t mean the chosen action was immoral. The argument assumes the existence of a better alternative automatically makes the actual choice morally wrong.
2. The argument does the opposite of this. It bases its moral judgment almost entirely on the consequences.
3. There’s no sweeping claim made about all government actions. It’s only criticizing this particular decision about the naval base.
4. The reasoning actually goes in the other direction. The author argues that this action was inefficient, so it was immoral. That’s not the same as assuming all efficient actions are moral.
5. There may have been other options, but the argument doesn’t depend on there being only two. Even if there were 10 possible alternatives, the reasoning would have the same flaw: it assumes failing to choose the best one is immoral. The real problem is the moral inference, not the number of options considered.