Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 18 May 2013, 19:23
Customize  |  Hide

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 245
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT Date: 02-20-2013
GPA: 3.65
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 18 [1] , given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 26 Nov 2012, 20:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00

Question Stats:

67% (02:21) correct 32% (01:27) wrong based on 5 sessions
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: Edge of Extinction
Joined: 09 Sep 2012
Posts: 40
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 29

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be... [#permalink] New post 27 Nov 2012, 07:08
1
This post received
KUDOS
Assumption
Prephrase: !Wrong = Right

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.Contender, check later. On 2nd pass, read stimulus again, reduction of aggregate well being is a premise, not the conclusion. Incorrect.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.Fig leaf/Shell/Out of scope. Incorrect.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right. Contender. Check later. On 2nd pass, read stimulus again. Strengthens conclusion and not a premise. Correct.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.Strengthens premise, not conclusion. Incorrect.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences. Weakens. Incorrect.

Thanks Vom. :)
_________________

The only ability the GMAT is an indicator of...is the ability to do well on the GMAT.

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 46
Schools: LBS '14
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 53

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2013, 12:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
vomhorizon wrote:
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…



increase well being, reduce well being, unchaged well being.... Morally right, Morally wrong... I can attack saying that correspondingly we can
have third type of actioh - neither right nor wrong corresponding to unchanged well being. this is going to hurt the conclusion, so it assumes
this does not exist. Hence Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right. No third action type..

Kudos if u like :)
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be   [#permalink] 18 Feb 2013, 12:22
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if sonaketu 7 03 May 2005, 00:05
New posts Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral old_dream_1976 6 07 Apr 2006, 14:30
Popular new posts 7 A certain moral system holds that performing good actions is vd 55 27 May 2008, 05:26
New posts 1 It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if talk2pk 8 13 Sep 2009, 21:10
Popular new posts 3 Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral noboru 18 11 Jun 2010, 11:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.