LSAT 66, Logical Reasoning II, Q7, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Philosopher: Both the consequences and the motives…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Moral agents need free will.

REASONING: You can’t be a moral agent without wanting to conform to a principle.

ANALYSIS: The first sentence is irrelevant fluff. It isn’t linked to the evidence or the conclusion.

Why? In this case, it’s not a conditional statement that can be linked logically with the other claims. Consequences and motives aren’t sufficient or necessary conditions for anything.

The problem with this argument is that the philosopher hasn’t made a link between free will and wanting to conform to principles.

They need to assume that conforming to principles requires free will.

___________

1. The consequences of actions are irrelevant fluff. They’re not sufficient or necessary for anything.
2. CORRECT. If you can conform to principles without free will, then it’s not clear why moral agents must desire to conform.
3. The first sentence is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn’t introduce sufficient or necessary conditions. This answer just references something from the first sentence and then introduces a new concept which also isn’t relevant, ‘free’. Being free and having free will aren’t the same thing.
4. This would mean, for example, that having a desire for chocolate chip cookies will make someone a moral agent. This answer is silly.
5. The moral worth of actions is only mentioned in the first sentence. It isn’t a sufficient or necessary condition for anything. It’s fluff that wasn’t linked to the argument.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---