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

[LSAT2018]

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:

I couldn't help but feel that the answers here work backwards, since the posts here start with
Know Best Consequences → Know All Consequences.

But if I were reading this stimulus for the first time, I would have trouble prephrasing to begin with. If I had just read the stimulus, what would be a possible prephrase for this answer? I was unsure as to whether 'know only some consequences' or 'best consequences' should be connected, or because the conclusion is a conditional statement itself, I would have to assume the sufficient condition so the necessary condition is activated. What are your recommendations on this?


Also here is how I broke down the stimulus:
Know Morally Right Actions → Know Best Consequences
Not Know Best Consequences → Not Know Morally Right Actions
Know Some Consequences → Not Know Morally Right Actions

Know Some Consequences → Not Know Best Consequences (Assumption)
Know Best Consequences → Know All Consequences (Contrapositive)

And on a side note, given the phrase an action’s being morally right were the same as the action’s having the best consequences does 'same as' imply a bi-conditional?

[LetsGetThis180]

Should we use the Mechanistic Approach for every Justify Conclusion question? I'm having a hard time with these sort of questions and I'm not sure when to use that Approach. This question was obviously simple when using that approach but sometimes it may be a bit difficult for other questions. Any advice/tips will be greatly appreciated! Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

In general, LetsGetThis, I suggest using that mechanistic approach any time you have any confusion or doubt about your prephrase or your answer choice. In that sense it is sort of like the Assumption Negation Technique - it's a backup plan that is fantastic, but it's usually best to start with a solid prephrase if you can and sort losers and contenders first based on that. To apply the test from the beginning can be unnecessarily time consuming.

So, if you see an obvious gap in the argument between the premises and the conclusion, prephrase something that closes that gap. If you see a potential flaw, prephrase something that eradicates that flaw completely. If you're stuck, get mechanical about it.

And to LSAT2018's question, yes, that conditional claim is setting up a biconditional of a sort. If two things are the same, then one is the other and the second is the first. They are equal, so they are, in a sense, sufficient for each other.