#16 - Moralist: Immoral actions are those that harm other

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The moralist in this stimulus begins by defining immoral actions, and then presents the following
conditional argument:

• Premise: Immoral actions eventually harm those who perform them:
  IA HA (immoral actions harm actor)
  
  Conclusion: Those who act immorally do so out of ignorance:
  IA I (immoral actors act out of ignorance)

The overlapping variable in the two statements is the IA, or Immoral Action. In order to properly draw
the above conclusion from the premise provided, we might look to tie together the remaining two
variables: Harm to the Actor, and Ignorance of the consequence.

Since we are asked to find the assumption required by the argument, we should look for the Supporter
Assumption that ties up the loose ends of the argument, as discussed above.

Answer choice (A): Since the argument concerns causes of immorality rather than responsibility, this
choice is off-topic and incorrect
.
Answer choice (B): The argument requires a link between harming one’s own self and ignorance of such
consequence, not a discussion of whether moral acts could be harmful to their originators.

Answer choice (C): The argument in the stimulus assumes that harming one’s own self and ignorance
are linked, not character and harming others. This choice gives the assumption that would support a
contrary argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct choice, as it links the two variables as needed to justify the
conclusion in the stimulus: Harm to the Actor, and Ignorance of consequence (lack of intent). That is,

• HA I

If we link this conditional statement to those in the stimulus, we get the following:

• IA HA I

This allows the conclusion in the stimulus to be properly drawn: IA I

Answer choice (E): A correct reading of this choice yields the assumption: all who knowingly harm
themselves have character defects. The argument in the stimulus,

[afinelli]

I chose D for this question. I wasn't crazy about that answer choice - but I don't see why C is correct. Any explanation on why C is a required assumption would be much appreciated! Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

You were right the first time, actually--D is the right answer choice!

[afinelli]

Shoot - sorry! I flipped the answer choices. I chose C and don't see why D is correct. Probably a sign that I have posted too much on the board that I can't keep my questions straight...

[Steve Stein]

No problem--I knew your first question was a little too easy! The moralist in this stimulus begins by defining immoral actions, and then presents the following conditional argument:

Premise: Immoral actions eventually harm those who perform them:

IA --> HA (immoral actions --> harm actor)

Conclusion: Those who act immorally do so out of ignorance:

IA --> I (immoral actors --> act out of ignorance)

The overlapping variable in the two statements is the IA, or Immoral Action. In order to properly draw the above conclusion from the premise provided, we might look to tie together the remaining two variables: Harm to the Actor, and Ignorance of the consequence.

Since we are asked to find the assumption required by the argument, we should look for the Supporter Assumption that ties up the loose ends of the argument, as discussed above.

Answer choice D links the two variables as needed to justify the conclusion in the stimulus: Harm to the Actor, and Ignorance of consequence (lack of intent). That is,

HA --> I

If we link this conditional statement to those in the stimulus, we get the following:

IA --> HA --> I

This allows the conclusion in the stimulus to be properly drawn: IA --> I


Let me know if that makes sense--thanks!

[afinelli]

Huge help! Thanks so much!

[TSE]

I have trouble prephrasing assumption questions. And diagramming this question.
(Oct 04, sec 4, q:16)

While on this question it might be helpful if we cover how to diagram (Only) and (Unless)?

Thank you for your time.
T

[Adam Tyson]

T, I'm not sure I would try to diagram this question. If I did, it would be some like "if you act in a way that harms yourself, then you must do it out of ignorance" (or "HY-->I"). The assumption, then, could be prephrased as the contrapositive of that statement - if you aren't ignorant, you don't harm yourself.

The difference between "only" and "unless" is the ever-popular and very important "unless equation". Only introduces a necessary condition, plain and simple, with the other condition in the relationship being the sufficient condition. Unless, however, requires an extra step - it introduces the necessary, but the other condition has to be negated in order to be the sufficient condition. So, if I say "I will like this movie only if Reese Witherspoon is in it", that's "LM -->RW", but if I say "I will like this movie unless Reese Witherspoon is in it", that's "Not LM --> RW" (sorry, don't know how else to show a slash through a variable!) (and by the way, that last statement is pure craziness - everyone loves Reese Witherspoon, right?)

Hope that helps!

Adam

[TSE]

Thanks, very helpful.
T

[Tuothekhazar]

T, I'm not sure I would try to diagram this question. If I did, it would be some like "if you act in a way that harms yourself, then you must do it out of ignorance" (or "HY-->I"). The assumption, then, could be prephrased as the contrapositive of that statement - if you aren't ignorant, you don't harm yourself.

The difference between "only" and "unless" is the ever-popular and very important "unless equation". Only introduces a necessary condition, plain and simple, with the other condition in the relationship being the sufficient condition. Unless, however, requires an extra step - it introduces the necessary, but the other condition has to be negated in order to be the sufficient condition. So, if I say "I will like this movie only if Reese Witherspoon is in it", that's "LM -->RW", but if I say "I will like this movie unless Reese Witherspoon is in it", that's "Not LM --> RW" (sorry, don't know how else to show a slash through a variable!) (and by the way, that last statement is pure craziness - everyone loves Reese Witherspoon, right?)

Hope that helps!

Adam

I enjoy every moment learning, discussing, and improving my lsat skills with any one sharing the same goals here by posting my thought trains. Thank you power score.

The argument structure is

A -> B, and B-> C

A - Immoral Action

B - Harm other people

C - Harm back fire at those who perform immoral action to harm others.

so, People/ A -> People / D + ( people /~ E )

D - Out of ignorance

E - Character defect

so apparently, what be required is the missing link between C -> People /D + People / ~ E

If people who immorally act to harm to others be harmed by that act, then those people do not know the consequences of that act out of ignorance but not due to the factor that those people do have character defects.


A. We are really not discussing the topic of morally responsible, eliminate it

B. Be careful, we are talking about "immoral actions ". Apparently and suspiciously, B talks about action in the general. Moreover, even if we regard the term of action as the discussed immoral action from the argument, the harm to those whom perform the immoral act does not require that act must hurt the others.

What we have is B-> C ( Whom perform the act to harm others would be harmed by that act ), and now we have C -> B ( Mistaken reverse of the premise.

C. This is the most tempting answer, since it attempts to trick you on " could be true " answer.

We only know the fact that harm as consequences to who performs harm immorally to others are purely out of ignorance and they do not have any character defects. but we can not necessary extrapolate that if they know the consequences of the immoral act, they must have character defect.

For example = If the assists Jason Kidd passed through out the past decades also assist him to be in hall of fame, it must because he is faster enough to make those pass but not because his perfect defensive consistency.

is it necessary to say that If Jason Kidd be assisted to get into hall of fame by passing the assists not because he is fast enough only if he has perfect defensive consistency ?

1. Scenario changed ( People unknown the consequences vs People known the consequences )
2. Uncertain whether necessary condition be necessary or unnecessary.
3. Negating the option by making the necessary condition unnecessary, we can't make any inference from the impact of negating answer c to the argument, since the group of people discussed are different.

E - No People knowingly harm themselves do not have character defect.

( People knowingly harm themselves must have character defect )

Wait... would not the logic behind E really similar to C ?



Correct Answer - D

People who acting immorally, eventually harm themselves do not intend that harm ( Be careful, this harm is not the harm from who perform the acts to impose on others, but the harm as the consequences they ignore )