Breakdown of the Argument:Premise 1: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences are other actions.
Premise 2: To know if an action is good, we need to know whether its consequences are good.
Premise 3: We cannot know the future.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is impossible to know if an action is good, making good actions impossible.
For this conclusion to hold, the argument assumes that knowing an action is good requires actually knowing it in advance, not just having beliefs or predictions about it.
Evaluation of the Options:
(A) Some actions have only other actions as consequences.
Irrelevant. The argument does not depend on whether only other actions are consequences. The focus is on whether consequences can be known, not their nature.
(B) We can know that past actions were good.
This is irrelevant because the argument does not address past actions. It deals with the impossibility of knowing if current or future actions are good.
(C) To know that an action is good requires knowing that refraining from performing it is bad.
This introduces a new condition (evaluating inaction) that is not discussed in the argument. The argument only concerns the consequences of an action, not its alternatives.
(D) Only actions can be the consequences of other actions.
This is irrelevant. The argument does not depend on the type of consequences (actions vs. non-actions). It focuses on whether we can know the outcomes.
(E) For an action to be good we must be able to know that it is good.
Correct. This directly connects to the argument's assumption. The argument hinges on the idea that if we cannot know the goodness of an action due to uncertainty about its consequences, good actions are impossible. This statement reflects the assumption that for an action to be considered "good," we must have knowledge (not just beliefs or predictions) of its goodness.
Correct Answer: (E)