- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat May 14, 2016 12:30 pm
#24806
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning—PR,SN. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus offers a complex principle: someone 1) benefiting 2) by his own doing 3) harm to another is morally justifiable only if the victim 1) knew that harm was likely, and 2) consents to it anyway.
This is a principle question, combined with a parallel reasoning one. In essence, we need to find an answer choice that conforms to the principle above and is actually relevant to the principle above.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is wrong because it talks about a different situation (not relevant). The principle in the stimulus talks about the justifiability of someone benefiting from causing harm to another. Sonia, in this case, by not escaping punishment, did not benefit from harming her brother.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is wrong because it talks about a different situation (not relevant). The principle in the stimulus talks about the justifiability of someone benefiting from his own causing harm to another. Ned, in this case, did not, by his own doing, harm Penny. It was Penny's brother that damaged her model airplane. Since the person that benefited (Ned) was not the one who caused the harm (Penny's brother), the principle in the stimulus is irrelevant.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Wesley benefited (obtaining results) from his doing harm to Max (testing the drug, resulting in serious side effects). According to the stimulus, this would be justified only if Max 1) knew of the possibility of harm, and 2) consented to it. But Wesley did not inform Max of the possibility of side effects; thus, Max did not know of the possibility of harm. As such, Wesley's action is morally unjustifiable.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it again talks about a different situation. Roger, while he benefited from his mother's kidney, was not the one doing the harm to his mother.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because it again talks about a different situation. The answer choice talks about an action depriving James of the profits from his books (thus harming him) is morally unjustifiable. However, it makes no mention of someone benefiting from such an action. The principle in the stimulus only addresses the moral justifiability when another person benefits from the action in question. As such, this answer choice is irrelevant because the principle does not apply.
Parallel Reasoning—PR,SN. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus offers a complex principle: someone 1) benefiting 2) by his own doing 3) harm to another is morally justifiable only if the victim 1) knew that harm was likely, and 2) consents to it anyway.
This is a principle question, combined with a parallel reasoning one. In essence, we need to find an answer choice that conforms to the principle above and is actually relevant to the principle above.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is wrong because it talks about a different situation (not relevant). The principle in the stimulus talks about the justifiability of someone benefiting from causing harm to another. Sonia, in this case, by not escaping punishment, did not benefit from harming her brother.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is wrong because it talks about a different situation (not relevant). The principle in the stimulus talks about the justifiability of someone benefiting from his own causing harm to another. Ned, in this case, did not, by his own doing, harm Penny. It was Penny's brother that damaged her model airplane. Since the person that benefited (Ned) was not the one who caused the harm (Penny's brother), the principle in the stimulus is irrelevant.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Wesley benefited (obtaining results) from his doing harm to Max (testing the drug, resulting in serious side effects). According to the stimulus, this would be justified only if Max 1) knew of the possibility of harm, and 2) consented to it. But Wesley did not inform Max of the possibility of side effects; thus, Max did not know of the possibility of harm. As such, Wesley's action is morally unjustifiable.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it again talks about a different situation. Roger, while he benefited from his mother's kidney, was not the one doing the harm to his mother.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because it again talks about a different situation. The answer choice talks about an action depriving James of the profits from his books (thus harming him) is morally unjustifiable. However, it makes no mention of someone benefiting from such an action. The principle in the stimulus only addresses the moral justifiability when another person benefits from the action in question. As such, this answer choice is irrelevant because the principle does not apply.
