Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

This question appears more like inference.
Can someone explain the OE..???


Thanks,
JaI

Anyways, could someone explain why answer choice A is not the correct one? Would provide some Kudos for good answers

Cheers
J

Looks to me as a inference question instead of the assumption question.

One of the Assumption in my pre-thinking phase was:
The net aggregate well being can be calculated after an action is taken/executed.

Option A) cannot be an assumption as it is stated in the premise.

Premise : > wellbeing -> Morally right
Premise : < wellbeing -> Morally wrong
Conclusion : = wellbeing -> also morally right.

C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

If you negate it, the conclusion cannot be drawn.

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them. - Looks more like of a conclusion.

(B) No action is both right and wrong. - Out of scope

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right. -Correct


(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.
We are not talking about the existence of any such actions.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences - Out of scope.

Option A is an extreme statement. By mentioning that 'ONLY' wrong actions reduce the aggregate well being of the people, we have to assume there is no other thing other than wrong actions that could reduce the aggregate well being. And that is not true.

It is indeed a very good question , initially I thought answer a E but later after taking few more seconds I marked c C has wide range !!!

[quote="vomhorizon"]Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

Assumption is the ogical jump which the author has made while making conclusion.

We need to find the jump , As mentioned in Question stem that Any thing that if & only if reduces is .....morally wrong & any thing that increase...is morally right.

on which he concluded actions that results unchanged are also right ....

He jumps from wrong actions that result in ..-ve to .....unchanged <in which he assumes that only those are actions are morally wrong which reduces the ..>

therefore C

Amazing question..let's BOIL this THINGY down.

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

Increase well-being => Right
Wrong <=> Decrease well-being.

What's the key? Well the damn FIRST arrow of the second BOIL statement, mate! This means..the ONLY way an action is wrong is if it decreases well-being.
By that school of thought, an action that leave the people unaffected is NOT WRONG. We have:


Premise: Unaffected => NOT WRONG
Assumption: ????
Claim: Unaffected => RIGHT

I think from this point..you can deduce the answer:


The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

Source: LSAT

certainly, this LSAT question never has chance to appear in the actual exam, but the pattern of this LSAT question is much similar to that of gmat questions.

I was confused between C and D.
D assumes that there are some actions when done have no net effect. What if there is no such action which can do so? Any thoughts.

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

If we negate the option "D", we have :

There are NO actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

this means there no such action at all. Hence no point of that action being morally RIGHT OR WRONG.
This option is not necessary for the conclusion to hold.
Hence Eliminate D

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

jlgdr GMATNinja


In my opinion the main reason why A is wrong is below:

In general in CR questions answer choices that contradict information in the stimulus are wrong. Stimulus says
that expectations....determine whether an action is right or wrong. Answer choice A, however, says that the fact that an action is wrong creates expectations that....

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Analysis: assumption
well-being ^--> right
well-being v --> wrong
conclusion: well-being = --> right: it's means authors is trying to say which is not wrong is right

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them. --> too strong, also this assumption will not support the conclusion, because describe the wrong, we don't know any relation between about well-being = & right from this

(B) No action is both right and wrong. --> too generic: we don't know any relation between the well-being = & right from this

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right. --> correct: align w/ analysis: we can derive the relation between the well-being = & right from this

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them. --> irrelevant

(E) Only right actions have good consequences--> irrelevant

Premise : Actions that improve overall well being of people are morally right. Actions that decrease the overall well being of ppl are wrong. Actions that maintain status quo are also right. What is the underlying assumption in drawing such a conclusion? Actions that do good are good. Actions that do bad are bad. And actions that neither do good nor bad are also good. Hence assumption is that actions are good if they don’t do bad.

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them
Largely correct, but this is not the assumption of the argument. Right actions too can lead to the detriment of ppl, but these actions are right because on aggregate they lead to well being of ppl. Aggregate being the key word.

B) No action is both right and wrong.
This is no where implied or assumed in the passage. On the contrary, the premise clearly delineates between what is right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.
Correct Answer. As pointed out earlier, since actions fall into only two categories, one – those that do bad for the overall well being of ppl and two – those that either do good or do no harm.


(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

While this is an assumption of the premise, it is not an assumption of the reasoning in the argument. We have to find an assumption that logically implies the reasoning of the argument, which is that actions that do not harm others are good.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences
On the contrary, the argument mentions that actions with no net benefit consequences are considered good too. Hence, this can not be the right answer.

I came across this question recently. Got it right in the first attempt.

I thought of it as an Overlapping-Sets DS problem.

One set is morally right. The other one is morally wrong. Further, it says that the intersection is 0 because unchanged wellbeing is also morally right.

Now, all this will only stand only when we assume that the Null Set (phi) is zero. Otherwise, actions that are not morally wrong can very well be of some third kind.

Hence, option C makes the most sense >> 'Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.'

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

Conclusion: actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right.
The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

In this question, the definition of an assumption is truly highlighted. Remember, an assumption is an UNWRITTEN premise/statement that MUST BE TRUE for the argument to be sound. Otherwise, it falls apart. Let's look at the options.

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them. This is something that is already mentioned in the question stem. We cannot assume this.

(B) No action is both right and wrong. We cannot assume this from the stem. It explicitly states the two different cases.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right. Bingo.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them. This one is tricky. But remember again, this is something that is already stated in the passage. So, we cannot assume it.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences we cannot assume this.

This question confused me by using two version of "right" : "morally right" and only "right". But as per the right answer choice, it was unwarranted.