It is currently 22 Sep 2017, 21:00

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 336

Kudos [?]: 215 [5], given: 31

Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 20:26
5
KUDOS
14
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (04:04) correct 38% (01:42) wrong based on 738 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

Source: LSAT

[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

Last edited by broall on 18 Sep 2017, 19:57, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 215 [5], given: 31

Intern
Status: Edge of Extinction
Joined: 09 Sep 2012
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 28 [3], given: 29

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2012, 07:08
3
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.

Kudos [?]: 28 [3], given: 29

Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 71 [3], given: 90

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2013, 12:22
3
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
_________________

Impossibility is a relative concept!!

Kudos [?]: 71 [3], given: 90

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 41

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2013, 06:44
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 ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 41

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1988

Kudos [?]: 707 [0], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2014, 09:33
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

Kudos [?]: 707 [0], given: 355

Current Student
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 942

Kudos [?]: 1036 [0], given: 548

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2014, 09:23
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

My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961

Kudos [?]: 1036 [0], given: 548

Current Student
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 942

Kudos [?]: 1036 [1], given: 548

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2014, 21:41
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961

Kudos [?]: 1036 [1], given: 548

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 79

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 03-02-2015
GPA: 3.88
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2014, 21:59
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.

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 79

Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 107

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 66

Schools: IIMA
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2014, 04:53
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 !!!

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 66

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2013
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 23

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT Date: 08-28-2014
GPA: 3.86
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2014, 06:05
[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 !!

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 23

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10171

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2016, 22:41
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.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be   [#permalink] 04 Feb 2016, 22:41
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 The end of an action is the intended outcome of the action 13 27 Aug 2015, 03:09
3 Rev. Hayes says that an action is right if it benefits one or more oth 4 30 Apr 2017, 20:00
4 Would it be right for the government to abandon efforts to 15 23 Jul 2016, 14:35
1 It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if 8 23 May 2012, 02:23
27 A certain moral system holds that performing good actions is 61 30 Jul 2016, 02:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by