Self-study
Many environmentalists have urged environmental awareness on consumers, saying that if we accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then products that directly or indirectly harm the environment ought to be avoided. █████████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████████ ██████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████████ █████ ███ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ █████████████████ █████ █████ ████████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The stimulus starts by telling us about an argument some environmentalists have made: according to them, if we accept moral responsibility for our effects on the environment, then we should avoid products that harm the environment indirectly or directly. But the author rejects this argument, saying that "there can be no moral duty" to choose products this way, because it is usually impossible for consumers to assess a product's environmental impact and so to only purchase products that are environmentally benign.
Analysis: Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption (Find the Rule)
For this question, we're looking for a principle that justifies the argument in the stimulus. A good way to pre-phrase such a principle is to treat this question as a Sufficient Assumption question — i.e., to start by tracing the premise → conclusion structure of the argument. In this case, the premise we are given is that it is usually impossible for consumers to restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products, and the conclusion is that there can be no moral duty for them to do so:
impossible to do → /moral duty
So a good pre-phrase for the sort of principle we're looking for would be something like "people do not have a moral duty to do something that is generally impossible for them to do."
5.
Which one of the following ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████
a
a moral duty ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████
Incorrect. This principle doesn't bridge the premise → conclusion structure of the argument, which never talks specifically about the effects of this action on other people.
b
a person cannot ████████ ████ █ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██
Correct. This fits the premise → conclusion structure we identified in our stimulus. Since it is usually impossible for people to restrict their purchases to environmentally benign products, they can't have a moral duty to do so.
c
moral considerations should ███ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █████████
Incorrect. This doesn't bridge the premise → conclusion structure of the argument, which doesn't talk about other considerations besides moral ones.
d
the morally right ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ █████ ████
Incorrect. This doesn't bridge the premise → conclusion structure of the argument, which never talks about "total harm".
e
where a moral ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████
Incorrect. This doesn't bridge the premise → conclusion structure of the argument. The point of the argument is that no moral duty exists in this case, not to talk about what happens when a moral duty does exist.