For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences.

Question

For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences. Thus the view that in no situation can we know what action is morally right would be true if an action’s being morally right were the same as the action’s having the best consequences.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) On some occasions we can come to learn that it is morally wrong to perform a certain action.

(B) On some occasions we can know what action is morally right.

(C) Knowing that an action has the best consequences requires knowing all the consequences of that action.

(D) Only the immediate consequences of our actions are relevant in determining whether they are morally right.

(E) An action may be morally right for one particular person without being morally right for all people.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This definitely seems like a doozy… I wouldn’t worry about this one if you’re not already scoring at least 160. That’s not to say I wouldn’t attempt it on the test. I would. But I wouldn’t waste time reading the following explanation if I were scoring less than 160, since there are  many  other questions you need to figure out first before you crack your head on this one.

Anyway, this is a weird question because it contains a conditional (if —> then) conclusion. The conclusion here (rearranged) is  if  an action’s being morally right is the same as the action having the best consequences,  then  it is true that we can never know what action is morally right. The only evidence provided for this assertion is, “We can only know some of the consequences of each action.”

The question asks us to make the conclusion “follow logically” from the facts. On this type of question, I am looking for the answer that will force the conclusion of the argument to be true. I can usually predict the correct answer on a question like this, often with startling accuracy, because it’s kinda like doing math: All we have to do here is connect the evidence to whatever part of the conclusion needs connecting to. The hard part is doing it in the right order. Here, the answer is probably very close to, “We can’t know whether an action will have the best consequences unless we know  all  of an action’s consequences.” Or, put another way, “If we don’t know all of an action’s consequences, we can’t know whether it will have the best consequences.”

The reason this must be the answer is that it connects the only premise we were given, “we can’t know all the consequences,” with the new information given in the conclusion, “morally right = best consequences.”

This is a 10 out of 10 difficulty question. There are much lower-hanging fruit on the test that deserve more attention from most students.

A) “Come to learn”? Hmm… not what we were looking for.

B) Again, simply not what we were looking for.

C) Boom. Exactly what we predicted.

D) Nope, not what we were looking for.

E) Not what we were looking for.

Our answer is C. These questions are all or nothing. An answer either proves the conclusion, like C does, or it does not. You must predict the correct answer in advance here. If you don’t, you’re probably in trouble.

tkorzhan1995 · Answer

Used process of elimination in this question. A, B use on some occasion. Argument considers all occasions.

(A) On some occasions we can come to learn that it is morally wrong to perform a certain action.

(B) On some occasions we can know what action is morally right.

(C) Knowing that an action has the best consequences requires knowing all the consequences of that action. - Correct
It correctly expresses correlation between determination of actions to be morally right, and knowledge of all the concequences. 
Action has the best concequences--> action is morally right.

(D) Only the immediate consequences of our actions are relevant in determining whether they are morally right. - Incorrect
It is irrelevant. The argument does not discuss what should be conditions for actions to be morally right.

(E) An action may be morally right for one particular person without being morally right for all people. - Incorrect
Difference in perception of morally right action is not discussed in the argument

ShreyasJavahar · Answer

In order to determine which of the above is a relevant assumption necessary for the conclusion to hold true, we can simply prefix the answer choices to the provided argument, and see whether the flow of sentences makes sense.

A) This does not logically point to anything in the argument. This is more of an inference that could be drawn from the argument.

B) Again, an inference, albeit a faulty one. Assuming this would pretty much go dead against what the argument says.

C) Perfect. Assuming this tells us that we need to know every consequence in order to take morally right actions. The argument follows logically from this assumption. When you prefix this to the argument, it is cohesive and makes perfect sense.

"Knowing that an action has the best consequences requires knowing all the consequences of that action, but for each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences. Thus the view that in no situation can we know what action is morally right would be true if an action’s being morally right were the same as the action’s having the best consequences."

D) Completely irrelevant. The argument does not have this sort of reasoning anywhere, it says quite the opposite, and requires knowledge of every possible consequence of an action.

E) The argument does not delve into any sort of subjective morality or try to design a customised "morality solution" for anyone. It is generic and straightforward. E is out.

unraveled · Answer

For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences. Thus the view that in no situation can we know what action is morally right would be true if an action’s being morally right were the same as the action’s having the best consequences.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Conclusion is longer than premise with conditional.
Two things that are shining brightly are that we can only know some of consequences of any action and that for morally right action are same as actions that have best consequences. All consequences have best consequences included in it. So, there must be a possibility wherein we know the consequences are best otherwise how would we know that they are.

(A) On some occasions we can come to learn that it is morally wrong to perform a certain action. - WRONG. Plain wrong.

(B) On some occasions we can know what action is morally right. - WRONG. Plain wrong.

(C) Knowing that an action has the best consequences requires knowing all the consequences of that action. - CORRECT.

(D) Only the immediate consequences of our actions are relevant in determining whether they are morally right. - WRONG. It gets into the specificity of consequences which is irrelevant.

(E) An action may be morally right for one particular person without being morally right for all people. - WRONG. True in real world but not here.

Definitely mind bending.

Answer C.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

The argument can be viewed as follows:

Premise: For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences.

Conclusion: Thus the view that in no situation can we know what action is morally right would be true if an action’s being morally right were the same as the action’s having the best consequences.

This stimulus looks somewhat intimidating, but in laymen’s terms, the argument really means the following:

When you do something, there are some consequences that you cannot know about. So, if being morally right is the same as knowing the best consequences, then there is no way to know if an action is morally right.

The question asks you to Justify the Conclusion, so seek an answer that forces the conclusion to follow from the premises. In the argument, the author makes a leap between not knowing all the consequences and not knowing the best consequences, so you should look for an answer that connects those two ideas (remember, morally right requires knowing the best consequences, yet we can’t know the best consequences because we can’t know all the consequences).

Mechanistically speaking, the conclusion contains the new idea of “best consequences,” so look for an answer that addresses that new element.

Answer choice (A): The stimulus concerns whether we can prove actions morally right, and being able to prove some of them wrong does not help decide whether some can be proven right.

Answer choice (B): The conclusion attempts to prove that we cannot know that a situation is morally right if morally right is the same as having the best consequences. This answer, which states that on occasion we can know what is morally right, does not assist us in proving that we cannot know that a situation is morally right. If anything, thus answer choice would undermine the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.  Under time duress, you could use a mechanistic approach and select this answer simply because it is the only answer that includes the “best consequences” idea that appeared in the conclusion.

In the absence of that approach, consider that this answer addresses the relationship we discussed in our analysis of the stimulus (“the author makes a leap between not knowing all the consequences and not knowing the best consequences”). In order for the author to conclude that in no situation can we know what is morally right because morally right requires knowing the best consequences (and we know only some of the consequences of any action), we need to show that knowing the best consequences requires knowing  all  of the consequences.

Conditionally speaking, this answer is in the form a conditional relationship:

Knowing whether best consequences :arrow: Knowing all consequences

The contrapositive is:

Knowing all consequences  -->  Knowing whether best consequences

Using this contrapositive, apply the Justify Formula by adding the following information from the stimulus:

Some consequences of every action are unknown

In combination with this answer, that information establishes that:

Whether an action has the best consequences is unknown

Thus, if morally right is the same as having the best consequences, and we cannot know the best consequences for an action, then it is true that in no situation can we know what action is morally right.

Answer choice (D): This choice suggests that it is  not  necessary to know all of the consequences of an action, which attacks the conditional conclusion rather than justifying it.

Answer choice (E): This answer suggests that an action could be determined to be morally right, and that sentiment does not assist in justifying a conclusion that asserts that in no situation can we know what action is morally right.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences.

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

For each action we perform, we can know only some of its consequences.

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