Explanation must be distinguished from justification. Every human acti

Question

Explanation must be distinguished from justification. Every human action potentially has an explanation, that is, with sufficient knowledge it would be possible to give an accurate description of the causes of that action. An action is justified only when the person performing the action has sufficient reasons for the action. According to many psychologists, even when there is a justification for an action, that justification often forms no part of the explanation. The general principle, however, is that only an action whose justification, that is, the reasons for the action, forms an essential part of its explanation is rational.

If the statements in the passage are correct, which one of the following can be properly concluded from them?

If the statements in the passage are correct, which one of the following can be properly concluded from them?

(A) When a human action is justified, that action has no explanation.

(B) If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action rational.

(C) Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation.

(D) There are actions whose causes cannot be discovered.

(E) If any human actions are rational, then reasons must sometimes be causes of actions.

Pritishd · Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the passage is that an action is considered to be rational only if the justification i.e reason for conducting that action is a subset of the explanation for that action. In other words a rational action is one in which the reason for conducting that action is able to explain the action itself. This can be confirmed by reading the last line of the prompt (highlighted in pink)

(A) When a human action is justified, that action has no explanation 
This statement makes a very bold claim that every justified action has no explanation. While the passage mentions that the justification often forms no part of the explanation it never mentions that the justification never forms a part

(B) If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action rational 
In essence this statement is trying to convey that every justified action is rational. But as we know only if the justification is able to explain the action then that action would be considered rational

(C) Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation 
This statement is similar to option A and repeats the same error

(D) There are actions whose causes cannot be discovered 
The objective of this passage is to analyze the underlying reasons for actions which are deemed as rational actions. The actions whose causes cannot be discovered in the first place are irrational actions and we are not concerned about them

(E) If any human actions are rational, then reasons must sometimes be causes of actions 
Yes, so this statement can be inferred from the passage. Its trying to say that there might be actions in which the reasons for that action would in turn be the very cause of that action. And this can only be the case when the reason for the action is an subset of the explanation.

E.g. Person X decides to start working out

Why to people work out in general (explanation of the action of working out)? - Improve fitness, increase activity etc.
Why did person X decide to work out (justification of action)? - X is suffering from say back pain and has been advised to do workout to improve fitness

As you can see how person X's justification forms part of the explanation for working out and how X's justification is the very cause of the action.

Ans -  E

NikTek · Answer

Why is B incorrect?
(B) If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action rational

(B) If there are any reasons (i.e. justification) among the causes of an action(i.e. explanation), then that action rational
which follows from "The general principle, however, is that only an action whose justification, that is, the reasons for the action, forms an essential part of its explanation is rational."

ABHRAJIT · Answer

B is saying that if there are any reasons among the causes, then the action is rational. According to the argument, the reasons if form an essential part of the explanation, then it is rational. So it is possible that there are reasons among the causes, but they do not form an essential part of the explanation, then option B is not true. Notice that option B says 'any' whereas option E says 'sometimes'.

unraveled · Answer

Explanation must be distinguished from justification. Every human action potentially has an explanation, that is, with sufficient knowledge it would be possible to give an accurate description of the causes of that action. An action is justified only when the person performing the action has sufficient reasons for the action. According to many psychologists, even when there is a justification for an action, that justification often forms no part of the explanation. The general principle, however, is that only an action whose justification, that is, the reasons for the action, forms an essential part of its explanation is rational.

If the statements in the passage are correct, which one of the following can be properly concluded from them?

If the statements in the passage are correct, which one of the following can be properly concluded from them?

(A) When a human action is justified, that action has no explanation. - WRONG. Eventually it will have.

(B) If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action rational. - WRONG. 2nd best option. But we are not sure whether that reason/s forms an essential part of the explanation. It may or may not be so the case.

(C) Some psychologists believe that the justification for  an action never forms an essential part  of its explanation. - WRONG. May be a tiny part of an overall argument but can't be a conclusion of the whole passage.

(D) There are actions whose  causes cannot be discovered . - WRONG. Not going with the flow of the argument.

(E) If any human actions are rational, then reasons must sometimes be causes of actions. - CORRECT. As reasons become cause of actions in a rational action, the explanation has justification of the action, which(justification) has reasons of the action.

Tough question, in fact one of the toughest. Here's my explanation.
Two aspects that must be different from each other are explanation and justification. Thereafter, it gives context as in when an action is justifiable. Then what many psychologists believe about justification and explanation is present and finally an exception(possibly) is presented wherein an action is rational. Here a justification becomes a part of an explanation and eventually that of rational action.

Explanation, Justification, cause of action, reason of action, rational action and justification being part of explanation are the essential elements of this passage.

Answer E.

gmatbd · Answer

I was having a very hard time in processing the stimulus. I didn’t even understand the difference between “reasons” and “causes” 😞

Posted from my mobile device

Jarvis07 · Answer

This is a challenging question. I will try to do my best with it. Here is my answer:

The correct option is  (E) If any human actions are rational, then reasons must sometimes be causes of actions.

This option follows logically from the passage, which states that only an action whose justification, that is, the reasons for the action, forms an essential part of its explanation is rational. Therefore, if any action is rational, it must have reasons as part of its causes. This option also does not contradict any other statement in the passage.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

(A) When a human action is justified, that action has no explanation. 
This option is false because it contradicts the passage, which states that every human action potentially has an explanation. Justification does not exclude explanation, but rather it is a special type of explanation that involves reasons.

(B) If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action rational. 
This option is false because it is too strong. It says that if there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action is rational. But the passage says that only an action whose justification forms an essential part of its explanation is rational. It is possible that there are some reasons among the causes of an action, but they are not sufficient or relevant for the justification of the action. For example, suppose I buy a lottery ticket because I want to win money and I have a lucky number. These are some reasons for my action, but they do not form an essential part of its explanation. The explanation of my action also involves other factors, such as my beliefs, emotions, habits, etc. Therefore, my action is not rational according to the passage.

(C) Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation. 
This option is false because it misrepresents the passage, which states that according to many psychologists, even when there is a justification for an action, that justification often forms no part of the explanation. This does not mean that some psychologists believe that justification never forms an essential part of the explanation. It only means that they believe that justification often does not form any part of the explanation.

(D) There are actions whose causes cannot be discovered. 
This option is false because it goes beyond the scope of the passage, which states that every human action potentially has an explanation. This does not imply that every human action actually has an explanation that can be discovered. It only means that with sufficient knowledge, it would be possible to give an accurate description of the causes of the action.

reed990 · Answer

For option C, since it says "some", will that make it reasonable? For sure, E is a better answer.

sudhsham · Answer

General principle : only an action whose justification, that is, the reasons for the action, forms an essential part of its explanation is rational.

Logic flow based on general principle :  Rational -> justification forms part of it's explanation.
That is, (If) an action is rational, (then) justification forms part of it's explanation.

(B) If there are any reasons among the causes of an action, then that action is rational.  
>It essentially means : (if) justification forms part of it's explanation, (then) that action is rational. This option reverses the flow of logic.

(E) If any human actions are rational, then reasons must sometimes be causes of actions.  
>This choice keeps the logic intact. (But the use of word "sometimes" is still bugging me)

I got it incorrect too. Nevertheless, after analysing carefully option E seems to be the best choice.

Explanation must be distinguished from justification. Every human acti

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

Explanation must be distinguished from justification. Every human acti

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