Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumer

Question

Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumers, saying that if we accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then products that directly or indirectly harm the environment ought to be avoided. Unfortunately it is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product, and thus impossible for them to consciously restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products. Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since ___________.

Which one of the following principles provides the most appropriate completion for the argument?

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people

(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do

(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers

(D) the morally right action is always the onew whose effects produce the least total harm

(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. The passage is about the effects that certain actions have on the environment, not on other people. Besides, the point of the passage is that consumers are unable to know these effects.

(B) Yes.  The point of the passage is that consumers cannot know which products truly harm the environment and so are unable to choose to restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products.

(C) No. The passage concerns the morality of the choices consumers make, not the options offered to consumers.

(D) No. There is no discussion of the gradation of harm in the passage. Besides, the point of the passage is that consumers are unable to know these effects.

(E) No. The passage is minimizing the moral duty of consumers.

pqhai · Answer

Premise1:  If consumers accept moral responsibility==>  they will restrict their purchases  of products that directly or indirectly harm the environment.

Premise 2:  Since consumers cannot assess the environment impact of a product ==>  they cannot restrict their purchases

Conclusion:  no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since.................

The conclusion just connects two premises above.  Please see the words in red, you will see the connection.

B says a person who is unable to assess the environment impact of a product cannot have moral duty. B connect the premise 1 and premise 2, hence it's correct.

Hope it helps.

mvictor · Answer

went with B by POE.

we need an answer choice that would explain why the method proposed by environmentalists would not work.
the argument says that people want to limit, but can't determine whether the product has negative effects on environment.

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people 
effects on other people has nothing to do with the environment.

(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do 
looks good, if a person doesn't know that a product might harm environment, then he has no knowledge if what he does is right or not. thus, moral duty cannot be evaluated.

(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers 
this is not what we need. products made available to consumers - talks about completely different thing.

(D) the morally right action is always the onew whose effects produce the least total harm 
even if it is, it does not explain that the method environmentalists proposed would not work.

(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty
irrelevant.

AARONRAMSEY · Answer

given that  it is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product 
 since the person is unable to understand what her moral duties are and how to achieve them we cannot except the person to do so.
Option B is correct: It states
a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do

chesstitans · Answer

I hardly see the argument structure. Can you help me paraphrase and simplify the whole argument.

I am lost while tracking the main conclusion and the main premise.

GMATNinja · Answer

Ah, a question about moral principles... sounds like the LSAT to me!

Start with conclusion, which is that "there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge." In other words, there can be no moral duty to avoid products that directly or indirectly harm the environment. Why not?

It is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product. 
 If consumers can't assess the environmental impact of a product, then they can't know whether that product directly or indirectly harms the environment. 
 If consumers don't know whether products directly or indirectly harm the environment, then consumers cannot "consciously restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products."

If every product had a label indicating whether the product harmed the environment, then, according to many environmentalists, consumers would have a moral duty to purchase only environmentally benign products. But if consumers cannot assess the environmental impact of a product, then then have no way to decide between harmful and benign products. Consumers can't have a moral duty to choice between harmful and benign products if those consumers cannot differentiate between harmful and benign products.

See if that helps!

prachi18oct · Answer

Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since
-> "Since" implies there should be a premise supporting the conclusion that there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way the environmentalists urge.
SO we should find a reason supporting this.

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people
 It does not affect the conclusion. 
(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do
 Yes. It supports the conclusion. 
(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers
 Irrelevant. 
(D) the morally right action is always the one whose effects produce the least total harm
 Irrelevant to the conclusion 
(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty
 Irrelevant to the conclusion

KB04 · Answer

Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumers, saying that if we accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then products that directly or indirectly harm the environment ought to be avoided. Unfortunately it is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product, and thus impossible for them to consciously restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products. Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since __________________·

Which one of the following principles provides the most appropriate completion for the argument?

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people
(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do
(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers
(D) the morally right action is always the one whose effects produce the least total harm
(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty

Fill in the blanks questions are generally of two types. It is asking you to either assume a missing information so that the passage can be completed or conclude the passage based on the given information. 
In this passage it is asking us to assume and based on that assumption we need to conclude that "Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge".
The correct answer here is "b" because if the consumer doesn't know anything about the impact of the product that he is buying on the environment how can he be morally dutiful for the impacts that the product might have.
Rest other options do not fit in the blank.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumers, saying that ifwe accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then products that directly or indirectly harm the environment ought to be avoided. Unfortunately
it is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product, and thus impossible for them to consciously restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products. Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since __________________·

Which one of the following principles provides the most appropriate completion for the argument?

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people - action on other people? out of scope 
(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do - Correct 
(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers - Out of scope 
(D) the morally right action is always the one whose effects produce the least total harm - Out of scope 
(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty - Out of scope

Adi93 · Answer

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people -- incorrect
(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do -- gives the reason to hold the conclusion right
(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers -- incorrect
(D) the morally right action is always the onew whose effects produce the least total harm -- good but not helping
(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty -- out of scope

hiranmay · Answer

Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumers, saying that if we accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then products that directly or indirectly harm the environment ought to be avoided. Unfortunately it is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product, and thus impossible for them to consciously restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products. Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since ___________.

Which one of the following principles provides the most appropriate completion for the argument?
 Analysis: environmentalists are saying: consumers should avoid the non-eco friendly products
Author says: consumers can's understand the environmental impact from the product
Conclusion: consumers don't violate te moral duty
prethinking to strengthen the conclusion: because they can't understand the environmental impact from the product, they can't do so.

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people --> irrelevant: moral duty indeed based on the effects the action that will have on other people

(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do -->  correct : matches w/ prethinkg

(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers -->irrelevant: we talking about moral factor, other factors are irrelevant

(D) the morally right action is always the one whose effects produce the least total harm --> irrelevant: we are talking about morally wrong action

(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty --> irrelevant: we aren't comparing moral duty w/ other kind of duties

PrinceVegeta · Answer

]Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumers, saying that if we accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then products that directly or indirectly harm the environment ought to be avoided. Unfortunately it is usually impossible for consumers to assess the environmental impact of a product, and thus impossible for them to consciously restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products. Because of this impossibility there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge, since ___________.

Which one of the following principles provides the most appropriate completion for the argument?
 
We can find out that this is an assumption question. when there is a----- after since or because it means that we have to fill the premise there. here we know the second conclusion." there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge" then since we cannot assess anything related to environmental impact, we cannot choose. so option B is saying that. rest of options are out of scope.

(A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people -----  not related

(B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do   there can be no moral duty to choose products in the way these environmentalists urge" then since we cannot assess anything related to environmental impact, we cannot choose. so option B is saying that.

(C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers   out of scope

(D) the morally right action is always the onew whose effects produce the least total harm   doesn't make sense

(E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty  out of bounds

ANSWER-  B

SatvikVedala · Answer

The argument talks about Individuals morality

Environmentalists: Individuals should accept moral responsibility for their effects on environment

Author: Since Individuals cannot assess the environmental impact of a product, it is impossible for them to restrict themselves from buying such products

Because of this impossibility a person cannot have moral responsibility

Impossibility -> A situation (impact on environment caused), which an individual cannot assess

Option B

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumer

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumer

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards