Kayla was in the zone. Hunched over her desk in her dark apartment, she breezed through the LSAT logical reasoning section with three full minutes left to answer the final question on the practice exam. She felt like she’d finally cracked the LSAT code. The exam had consumed her life for the past six months and would determine whether she got into a top 10 law school, and ultimately her future legal career. Breaking a 170 meant a potential free ride to NYU, while a 160 meant a mediocre school and $300,000 of debt. She had been denying herself walks with friends, wedding planning, and even her fiancé, to get the score she needed.
Logical Reasoning Section
Question 25. If a philosopher defines an action as morally right, that means it’s expected to improve the well-being of the majority of people affected by it. If it’s morally wrong, it’s expected to reduce the well-being of the majority. If the action should leave the majority unchanged, the philosopher also deems it to be morally right. The philosopher assumes which of the following?
(A) Only wrong actions would be 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 expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.
(E) Only right actions have good consequences.
Kayla circled A, slammed her exam book shut, and jumped up from the desk with a force...
Subscribe now to keep reading
Please enter your email to log in or create a new account.