LSAT 3 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

ANALYSIS: We have necessary conditions for morally good, and sufficient conditions for morally bad. This is important. It means we can conclude morally bad, but we can never conclude an action is morally good.

The right answer will either conform to the sufficient necessary conditions in the stimulus (listed below) or their contrapositives.

Sufficient and Necessary Conditions:

If Morally Good ➞ benefits another person AND the act was performed with that intention

If an action harms another person AND [if such harm was intended OR reasonable foresight was not used] ➞ An Action is morally bad

Contrapositives:

If an action doesn’t benefit another person OR the act wasn’t intentionally ➞ Not Morally Good

If an action was not morally bad ➞ No harm was done OR [harm was not intended AND reasonable foresight was used]

___________

1. We can only conclude morally bad if an action harms someone.
2. We can never conclude something is morally good, since it is a sufficient condition. Note that Jeff’s actions are also missing a necessary condition: he didn’t act with intent to benefit.
3. An action is only morally good if it helps someone. Poor Teresa helped no one.
4. Reasonable foresight tells us that people hardly ever choke on sandwiches. It would be absurd to say that Marilees performed a morally bad act.
5. CORRECT. It reasonably foreseeable that something could go wrong if you don’t watch your three year old niece. That was why he was asked and agreed to watch her. Jonathan’s actions were morally bad: they caused harm and he didn’t use reasonable foresight.

Recap: The question begins with “It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if”. It is a Principle question. Learn more about LSAT Principle questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.