LR Problem Set #1 Questions 31

[abajaj]

Hi,

I am currently working on the LR Problem Set #1 and have the following question:

#31: I generally just have a lot of trouble with parallel reasoning type questions anyway, and I did get this one right (from guessing). The answer I put was E (correct), but I was stuck between E and A. Would someone be able to explain to me why the answer is not A? I would guess it could be correct because Pamela had the intention of the letter being harmful, even though it didn't have the desired effect.


Any help would be appreciated, thank you so much!!!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Although this question resembles a Parallel Reasoning question, it is actually a Must Be True/Principle question, requiring you to apply the principle in the stimulus and determine which answer choice logically follows from it.

The stimulus consists of two principles seeking to determine the morality of actions. Both principles contain conditional reasoning and can be diagrammed as follows:

Morally Good Benefit another + Perform with the intention to benefit

Harm + (Intent to cause OR foreseeable likelihood of harm) Morally Bad

Take a minute to examine what kinds of actions we can determine given the information in the stimulus. First, we can determine when someone's action is morally bad: they either intentionally harmed another person, or disregarded the foreseeable possibility that their actions would cause harm. Second, we can also determine when someone's action was not morally good: either the action didn't benefit another person, or it wasn't performed with the intention to benefit.

Note that just because someone's action can be deemed "not good," that doesn't mean that it is "bad" - do not conflate logical and polar opposites. More importantly, we can never determine when a certain action is "morally good," because the label "morally good" is on the sufficient condition side of the first principle. Even if both necessary conditions in that principle were met, that still wouldn't be sufficient to ensure that the action is morally good (to argue otherwise would be a Mistaken Reversal). This eliminates (B) and (C).

(A) is incorrect, because Pamela did not cause any harm (even though she intended to). Her intent to cause harm meets one of the two sufficient conditions in the second principle. The other sufficient condition is actual harm, which is clearly absent in this case. Although Pamela's actions could be morally bad, we cannot know for sure that they are.

(D) is incorrect for a similar reason. Although Marilees inflicted harm on the homeless man, that's only half the equation. The second sufficient condition is intent to cause harm OR foreseeable likelihood of harm. Marilees never intended to harm the man, nor was his choking a reasonably foreseeable event - it was an accident. Thus, we cannot know for sure if Marilees' actions were morally bad.

(E) is correct, because Jonathan's action caused harm (the niece was hit by a bicycle), and the harm was reasonably foreseeable (were it not for him getting distracted). Thus, by applying the second principle in the stimulus, we can justify the conclusion that Jonathan's action was morally bad.

[abajaj]

Thank you! This helps a lot, I had set up my conditional for "morally bad" incorrectly, and that's where my confusion was coming into play.