LSAT 154 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: It is morally praiseworthy to be honest only if one…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Downing’s actions were honest but Downing didn’t deserve moral praise for his actions.

REASONING: No respect for morality ➞ no praise

ANALYSIS: We only have one conditional statement in the stimulus. So, there’s only one way to prove someone doesn’t deserve praise: we have to show that their honesty was not due to respect for morality.

We also only know one thing about Downing: he acted for his own well being. So we have a gap:

Act for own well being no respect for morality ➞ praise

So we can prove this argument by showing that someone who acts for their own well being is not acting from respect for morality. This joins the evidence to the conclusion and proves the argument:

Act for own well being ➞ no respect for morality ➞ no praise

___________

1. “Moral condemnation” is entirely irrelevant! The argument is talking about moral praise.
    
   Plenty of things are morally neutral: the fact that something isn’t worthy of moral condemnation doesn’t mean it’s worthy of moral praise. For instance, making breakfast is generally neither morally condemnable nor praiseworthy.
2. We know Downing was honest. This answer does help us prove that some honest actions are not praiseworthy.
   But….so what? This answer shows that the conclusion is potentially correct. We need an answer that shows it is certainly correct.
    
   If you were aiming for 170+ and asked me if you would get a 170+, and I said “well….I suppose there is some chance of it”….how reassured would you feel? You want actual proof, actual belief that it will happen. This answer could have been correct had it said “no honest actions are morally praiseworthy” as it would have covered 100% of cases, as opposed to “some”. Though even then, this answer doesn’t really connect with the logic of the argument.
3. CORRECT. See the analysis above. This answer is “respect for morality ➞ done for concern for oneself“. So, the contrapositive is “done for concern for oneself ➞ respect for morality“.
    
   We know Downing acted from concern for himself, so this answer lets us therefore prove he doesn’t deserve praise. When you connect this answer to the argument you get: Done for concern for oneself ➞ respect for morality ➞ morally praiseworthy
4. This is really vague. It tells us something can be judged only according to standards that refer to circumstances. But….that doesn’t tell us what the standards actually are. It only tells us what they refer to. According to this answer the standards could be anything at all.
5. This statement doesn’t really apply, as in this case Downing’s honesty helped his well being. Regardless, this statement does tell us to be honest, but it doesn’t do anything to link that to moral praiseworthiness. (If we must be honest, why would honesty be praiseworthy? Usually we don’t deserve praise for what we’re forced to do)

Recap: The question begins with “It is morally praiseworthy to be honest only if one”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Sufficient questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.