Self-study
Support The end of an action is the intended outcome of the action and not a mere by-product of the action, and Support the end's value is thus the only reason for the action. ██ █████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███ █████ █████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ █ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████
Structure: Premise-Conclusion
The stimulus gives us a premise about the "end" of an action: it is defined as an action's intended outcome, and the value of that intended outcome is the only reason for an action. We are then given some concessions — that not every end's value will justify every means, and perhaps that no end can justify every means — before we get the argument's conclusion: nothing will justify a means except an end's value.
Identify Main Conclusion
Language clues can get us to the main conclusion pretty quickly. We know the first sentence is a premise because it is used as support by the next sentence, which starts with "so." We know that both clauses set off by the phrase "while it is true" are concessions, and so we're left with a conclusion clearly marked by the "So... it is clear that..." set-up: nothing will justify a means except an end's value.
If you've gotten this far, you might have looked over the answer choices and noticed that the hard part might be recognizing the "translation" of that conclusion. Remember that it's a statement about a necessary condition: if a means is justified, it must be justified by the end's value.
justified → end's value
As the concessions in the argument state, this doesn't mean that an end's value is always sufficient to justify the means to that end. But whenever a means is justified, it must be by the value of the end — i.e., the intended outcome of that action.
24.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
The value of ████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████
Incorrect. The argument actually suggests that this statement isn't true. More importantly, this isn't the conclusion of the argument.
b
One can always ███████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
Incorrect. The conclusion says that if a means is justified, it can only be by the value of the end — i.e., the intended outcome. That's a statement about a necessary condition, not a statement that the value of an end is always sufficient to justify an action or means.
c
One can justify ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
Correct. This rephrases the conclusion of the argument: the only thing that can justify a means or action is the value of its end — i.e., its intended outcome.
d
Only the value ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████
Incorrect. The conclusion states that only the value of an action's end can justify that action, and we're told in the premises that an action's end is not a by-product of the action.
e
Nothing can justify ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████ █████████
Incorrect. The conclusion tells us that only the value of an action's end can justify that action. An action's "end" is defined in the premises as an action's intended outcome. There's no contrast in the stimulus between "intended" versus "actual" outcomes.