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

It is currently 02 Oct 2014, 03:34

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
3 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 339
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 76 [3] , given: 31

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 26 Nov 2012, 19:26
3
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (06:20) correct 45% (01:38) wrong based on 540 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

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

Kudos [?]: 16 [3] , given: 29

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be... [#permalink] New post 27 Nov 2012, 06:08
3
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.

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 50
Schools: LBS '14
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [3] , given: 55

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2013, 11:22
3
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 :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 150
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 41

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 05 Sep 2013, 05:44
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…


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


Thanks,
JaI
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1669
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
WE: Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 276

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 04 Feb 2014, 08:33
sagarsingh wrote:
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 :)


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

Cheers
J
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 341
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 313

CAT Tests
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 10 Feb 2014, 08:23
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…


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.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
Never Give Up !!!

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful
Linkedin Handle : https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=116231592

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 341
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [1] , given: 313

CAT Tests
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 19 May 2014, 20:41
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
Never Give Up !!!

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful
Linkedin Handle : https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=116231592

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Posts: 86
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 480 Q31 V24
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V37
GPA: 3.88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 46

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 19 May 2014, 20:59
jlgdr wrote:
sagarsingh wrote:
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 :)


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

Cheers
J


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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 108
Schools: IIMA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 61

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 26 Jul 2014, 03:53
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 !!!
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2013
Posts: 78
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
Schools: Insead '14, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 08-28-2014
GPA: 3.86
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 15

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2014, 05:05
[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
_________________

G-prep1 540 --> Kaplan 580-->Veritas 640-->MGMAT 590 -->MGMAT 2 640 --> MGMAT 3 640 ---> MGMAT 4 650 -->MGMAT 5 680 -- >GMAT prep 1 570

Give your best shot...rest leave upto Mahadev, he is the extractor of all negativity in the world !!

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be   [#permalink] 16 Aug 2014, 05:05
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In his discussion of natural rights, the English philosopher goodyear2013 0 06 Apr 2014, 11:30
1 It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if talk2pk 8 13 Sep 2009, 20:10
10 A certain moral system holds that performing good actions is vd 57 27 May 2008, 04:26
Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral old_dream_1976 6 07 Apr 2006, 13:30
It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if sonaketu 7 02 May 2005, 23:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

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®.