#21 - Ethicist: As a function of one's job and societal role

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—PR. The correct answer choice is (A)

The ethicist quoted in this stimulus points out that one's professional and societal duties are not absolute, because in certain circumstances fulfilling them would lead to disastrous consequences. It is, however, a moral principle, according to the ethicist, that one must fulfill such a duty unless there is overwhelming evidence that such disastrous consequences will result.

The question stem requires us to find the answer choice which most closely conforms to the principle from the stimulus. The right answer will likely have someone deciding to fulfill a duty, or not, depending or whether overwhelming evidence exists that the consequences would be disastrous.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. In this example, the teacher fulfills her duty, as she should according to the ethicist, in light of the fact that there is not overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences if she lets the grade stand (failure to obtain an internship would probably not fall under the category of "disastrous.")

Answer choice (B): This choice goes against the words of the ethicist, because the person fails to fulfill his duty in spite of the fact that the consequences would not be disastrous.

Answer choice (C): Like incorrect answer choice (B) above, this choice is contrary to the beliefs of the ethicist, who would say that the investigator is required to fulfill the referenced duty to report the contractor.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice involved conflicting duties, and there is no overwhelming evidence of disaster in any case, so this answer choice does not conform to the principle of morality cited by the ethicist.

Answer choice (E): In this case, according to the ethicist, the reporter should fulfill his duty because there is not overwhelming evidence that disastrous consequences will result. Since the journalist does not act according to the principle of morality cited in the stimulus, this answer choice is incorrect.

[brownee]

Regarding answer choice A for #21, LR1, PT46: how does this answer choice parallel the principle described in the stimulus?

[Steve Stein]

Hi brownee,

Take another look at that question--it does not ask you to parallel the principle presented in the stimulus; it asks you for the answer choice that conforms to that principle--it must agree with the principle, which includes the idea that if you don't have overwhelming evidence that something disastrous will come from doing your duty, you should do it.

That is why the teacher should do his or her duty, and give the student the mediocre grade that the student deserves--an internship may be on the line, but that doesn't amount to "overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences."

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

Could you explain answer (D) a bit more? From my understanding, the psychiatrist should fulfill her duty to report, because there wouldn't be any disastrous consequences otherwise. However, she doesn't have to fulfill her duty of confidentiality, since she has overwhelming evidence of possible disastrous consequences (covering a terrible crime).

Many thanks!

[Jon Denning]

Hi sunshine - sure thing!

Let's make sure we understand the stimulus first, then we'll look at D.

The stimulus is typically convoluted (more so than it need be at least, in classic LSAT fashion), but essentially boils down to this: sometimes a person performing their societal duties would have disastrous consequences, so despite being called "duties" exceptions clearly exist (they're not absolute). That said, if you aren't more or less certain that fulfilling those duties is going to lead to some terrible outcome, then you should stick to your duties and fulfill them. (The contrapositive of that last idea is: if you're not going to fulfill your duties then you need to be sure those duties would produce disastrous consequences)

In short: always do what you're supposed to unless you've got good evidence that doing so would lead to a terrible outcome.

We're then asked for an answer that conforms to this, which is a Must Be True construction. Now we simply play a matching game, where the specifics in the right answer will match the broad info we've been given, and the four wrong answers will somehow fail to match with what we know.

Where does D fail?

Well we're told the psychiatrist's duties include two things: report potential crimes to authorities, and keep patient info confidential. And she should fulfill those duties UNLESS she has extremely good evidence that doing so would have disastrous consequences...and here's our problem. We don't know the consequences of doing either of those things—reporting it or keeping it a secret—so there's no way to know that she should ignore her duty to her patient and report! Put another way, if she's not going to fulfill her duty to the patient and keep what she's told confidential, she needs to have some evidence that keeping that secret would cause disastrous harm. And she doesn't have that evidence (a patient "may have committed a crime" based on a dream is hardly overwhelming evidence).

So that's where D fails to match, and that's how we can eliminate it!

Note that A, on the other hand, has someone fulfilling her duty because there's no overwhelming evidence of a disastrous consequence. That conforms beautifully with the stimulus!

[Blueballoon5%]

Well we're told the psychiatrist's duties include two things: report potential crimes to authorities, and keep patient info confidential. And she should fulfill those duties UNLESS she has extremely good evidence that doing so would have disastrous consequences...and here's our problem. We don't know the consequences of doing either of those things—reporting it or keeping it a secret—so there's no way to know that she should ignore her duty to her patient and report! Put another way, if she's not going to fulfill her duty to the patient and keep what she's told confidential, she needs to have some evidence that keeping that secret would cause disastrous harm. And she doesn't have that evidence (a patient "may have committed a crime" based on a dream is hardly overwhelming evidence).

Hello! I am a little confused with this statement, "Put another way, if she's not going to fulfill her duty to the patient and keep what she's told confidential, she needs to have some evidence that keeping that secret would cause disastrous harm."

The stimulus conclusion states, "... if one does not have overwhelming evidence that fulfilling such a duty will have disastrous consequences, one ought to fulfill it."

A conditional statement of this will look like, "No evidence fulfill duty."

The statement above has, I think, what is supposed to be the contrapositive of, "Not fulfill duty some evidence."

My question: The stimulus talks about having the evidence of the disastrous consequences of FULFILLING a duty; the statement above seems to be talking about the opposite (the evidence of the disastrous consequences of NOT FULFILLING a duty."

Instead, shouldn't the statement above read, "Put another way, if she's not going to fulfill her duty to the patient and keep what she's told confidential, she needs to have some evidence that not fulfilling a duty would cause disastrous harm"?

I'm not sure--please let me know, so that I can understand! Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think you've over thought that one quite a bit, blueballoon! Jon's explanation was spot-on. Your final statement seems a little nonsensical - walk yourself through that one again and I think you'll see the contradiction. Jon's conditional statement is about having evidence that fulfilling a duty will have disastrous consequences. If you choose not to fulfill your duty then you must have evidence that fulfilling it would have those consequences. Come back at it again in a couple of days and look at it with fresh eyes, and I think you'll see that he had it right all along.

[nosracgus]

Hi! Is E wrong because it uses the wording "slight chance"? In other words, there is no "overwhelming evidence"?
If it said "A journalist thinks it is likely that..", would E be correct?

Thanks!!
C

[Jeremy Press]

Hi C!

Yes, that's one of the problems with answer choice E--nice job! The principle of morality "triggers" if there is overwhelming evidence that fulfilling it will have disastrous consequences. Since the journalist thinks there is only a "slight chance" of disastrous consequences, that doesn't reach the level of certainty ("will") that would trigger the principle. The journalist in answer choice E also does not have "overwhelming evidence." Merely "thinking" something might happen doesn't indicate evidence, and certainly not overwhelming evidence. "Thinking" something is the case is just an opinion. The last problem with answer choice E is the conclusion about what should be done. From the stimulus, when our principle triggers, it's a rock solid certainty that someone "ought to fulfill" their duty. In answer choice E, the journalist doesn't conclude that the duty ought to actually be fulfilled, just that she "should await further developments" before making a decision to fulfill the duty.

I hope this helps!

[nosracgus]

Yes, thanks so much. I didn't really notice the last issue with the conclusion before, but now that you mention it I can see how/why E should be eliminated on multiple grounds.