LSAT 6 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Someone’s benefiting from having done harm to another…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

PRINCIPLE: If you harm someone and benefit: it’s only morally justifiable if they knew that they could be harmed but said yes anyway.

ANALYSIS: We need three things to be true for an action to be morally justifiable in this case.

1. You harm someone and,
2. You benefit, and
3. the other person was aware of the risk of harm and consented.

___________

1. Since Sonia was also kept after school, she didn’t benefit. We only know about a situation where the person does benefit.
2. Ned didn’t cause the harm, so this situation is different.
3. CORRECT. This matches the principle. Wesley benefited (he got to publish the results) and he did cause the harm (the drug has side effects). Wesley did not warn Max about the harm. Therefore Wesley wasn’t morally justified.
4. This situation is different since Roger’s mother consented and knew about the harm.
5. Here the question is whether we should deny James his profits. That is different from harming him and benefiting from it.

Recap: The question begins with “Someone’s benefiting from having done harm to another”. It is a Principle question. Learn more about LSAT Principle questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.