Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumer

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

(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

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

]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 dutyout of bounds

ANSWER- B

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