#23 - For each action we perform, we can know only some of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

The argument can be viewed as follows:

Premise: For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences.

Conclusion: Thus the view that in no situation can we know what action is morally right
would be true if an action’s being morally right were the same as the action’s
having the best consequences.

This stimulus looks somewhat intimidating, but in laymen’s terms, the argument really means the
following:

When you do something, there are some consequences that you cannot know about. So, if
being morally right is the same as knowing the best consequences, then there is no way to
know if an action is morally right.

The question asks you to Justify the Conclusion, so seek an answer that forces the conclusion
to follow from the premises. In the argument, the author makes a leap between not knowing all
the consequences and not knowing the best consequences, so you should look for an answer that
connects those two ideas (remember, morally right requires knowing the best consequences, yet we
can’t know the best consequences because we can’t know all the consequences).

Mechanistically speaking, the conclusion contains the new idea of “best consequences,” so look for
an answer that addresses that new element.

Answer choice (A): The stimulus concerns whether we can prove actions morally right, and being
able to prove some of them wrong does not help decide whether some can be proven right.

Answer choice (B): The conclusion attempts to prove that we cannot know that a situation is morally
right if morally right is the same as having the best consequences. This answer, which states that on
occasion we can know what is morally right, does not assist us in proving that we cannot know that a
situation is morally right. If anything, thus answer choice would undermine the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Under time duress, you could use a
mechanistic approach and select this answer simply because it is the only answer that includes the
“best consequences” idea that appeared in the conclusion.

In the absence of that approach, consider that this answer addresses the relationship we discussed
in our analysis of the stimulus (“the author makes a leap between not knowing all the consequences
and not knowing the best consequences”). In order for the author to conclude that in no situation
can we know what is morally right because morally right requires knowing the best consequences
(and we know only some of the consequences of any action), we need to show that knowing the best
consequences requires knowing all of the consequences.

Conditionally speaking, this answer is in the form a conditional relationship:

Knowing whether best consequences Knowing all consequences

The contrapositive is:

Knowing all consequences Knowing whether best consequences

Using this contrapositive, apply the Justify Formula by adding the following information from the
stimulus:

Some consequences of every action are unknown

In combination with this answer, that information establishes that:

Whether an action has the best consequences is unknown

Thus, if morally right is the same as having the best consequences, and we cannot know the best
consequences for an action, then it is true that in no situation can we know what action is morally
right.

Answer choice (D): This choice suggests that it is not necessary to know all of the consequences of
an action, which attacks the conditional conclusion rather than justifying it.

Answer choice (E): This answer suggests that an action could be determined to be morally right, and
that sentiment does not assist in justifying a conclusion that asserts that in no situation can we know
what action is morally right.

[Kp13]

Hi,

I was totally confused after reading the stimulus. What is your advice on untangling the logic behind the conclusion? Why is the answer C) correct?

Thank you,

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I was totally confused after reading the stimulus. What is your advice on untangling the logic behind the conclusion? Why is the answer C) correct?

Thank you,

Dear Kp13:

One possible easy answer is that answer (C) is the only one that has "best consequences" in it, a term mentioned in the stimulus and thus probably needing explanation!
A more thorough answer is coming in a few minutes,

David

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I was totally confused after reading the stimulus. What is your advice on untangling the logic behind the conclusion? Why is the answer C) correct?

Thank you,

Dear Kp13:

One possible easy answer is that answer (C) is the only one that has "best consequences" in it, a term mentioned in the stimulus and thus probably needing explanation!
A more thorough answer is coming in a few minutes,

David

Dear Kp13:

Moreover: let's try diagramming it. A workable starting diagram might be like, "a arrow slash kac arrow slash kmr". In other words, "An action means you can't know all of the consequences, which means you can't know if an action's morally right." Or, using our friend the contrapositive, "kmr arrow kac", i.e., knowing it's morally right requires knowing all of the consequences.
The stimulus "swaps" best consequences with moral rightness. And with answer choice (c), which could be diagrammed "kbc arrow kac" (knowing best consequences requires knowing all consequences), that swaps in kbc for kmr in the "kmr arrow kac" equation that's above, which matches the swap that the stimulus makes. Does that make sense? Hope it helps,

David

[Kp13]

Thanks. I get it now.

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, So in this justify the conclusion question I looked for the rogue term in the conclusion and tried to see what would be sufficient for the conclusion to be valid. I thought that morally right was the wrong term but from looking at another post I guess the rogue term is best consequences. Could you please break this question down for me. I got a little confused and ended up going with D. I would appreciate a diagram using the justify formula since I need to perfect that method. Thank you so much !

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Jkjones3789,

This is indeed a confusing argument, purposely so. The first premise states that for each action we perform, we only know some of its consequences:

Premise: Know only some (i.e. not all) consequences

The second premise is at the very end of the argument, as the conclusion ("thus...") is in the middle. The second premise states that an action's being morally right is the same as the action's having the best consequences:

Premise: Morally right action Best consequences

The conclusion then states that in no situation can we know what action is morally right.

Conclusion: NOT know morally right actions

This argument is clearly disjointed, but I wouldn't say there is necessarily a "rogue" element in the conclusion that can easily be linked to the premises. In fact, it is the premises that need to be connected in a way that makes the conclusion logically valid. Answer choice (C) accomplishes this goal:

Know the best consequences Know all the consequences

If knowing the best consequences of an action requires knowing all the consequences of that action, but we can never know all the consequences of our actions (first premise), we can conclude that we cannot know the best consequences of our actions:

Know only some (i.e. not all) consequences NOT know the best consequences

This is equivalent to saying that we cannot know what action is morally right, because an action's being morally right is the same as the action's having the best consequences (second premise):

Know only some (i.e. not all) consequences NOT know morally right actions

Thus, the conclusion is justified, and answer choice (C) is correct.

Does that make sense?

Thanks!

[jiyounglee]

Yes It does! Thank you!

[jcough346]

Can you make a connection between "some" in the premises and "all" in answer choice (C)?
(Similar to the reasoning in #21 of this test)

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking about this, jcough, because in this particular argument, "some" is being used in a way that differs a bit from what we usually encounter on LSAT.

In real life, when we talk about "some" we are typically talking about something less than all. We would not often say "sometimes the sun rises in the east and sets in the west". We would be more likely to say something like "sometimes the sunset is beautiful", and that would imply that sometimes it is not.

On the LSAT, we counsel students to approach some with a colder logic than what we apply in real life. Part of that counseling is to treat "some" as including "all". When an argument on the LSAT tells us that "some electric cars are not good for the environment", we have to keep our minds open to the possibility that all electric cars are not good for the environment.

This argument deviates from that standard in one important way, and that is the addition of the word "only" - "only some of its consequences" means NOT all. Because of the inclusion of only in this phrase, we know the author is saying some but not all - we cannot know all the consequences.

Now we can tie back into "all" in answer C. We cannot know all, says the premise, and we must know all, says the answer choice. That gets us to the conclusion that we cannot know what's best, because knowing what's best requires knowing all and it is not possible to know all.

Always be on the lookout for those kinds of relationships, and be aware of the ways that they interact and change because of the way they are used.

Good thinking!