LSAT 135 – Section 2 – Question 08

LSAT 135 - Section 2 - Question 08

December 2011

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:19

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT135 S2 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
83%
164
B
6%
155
C
1%
155
D
5%
154
E
6%
158
136
146
156
 +Medium 146.729 +SubsectionMedium

Caldwell: The government recently demolished a former naval base. Among the complex’s facilities were a gymnasium, a swimming pool, office buildings, gardens, and housing for hundreds of people. Of course the government was legally permitted to use these facilities as it wished. But clearly, using them for the good of the community would have benefited everyone, and thus the government’s actions were not only inefficient but immoral.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the government’s demolishing of a former naval base was inefficient and immoral. This is based on the fact that using the base’s facilities for other purposes would have benefited everyone.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if using the base for other purposes would have benefited everyone, then demolishing the base is immoral. This overlooks the possibility that demolishing the base could have been a morally acceptable action even if not demolishing the base could have benefited everyone. There’s no necessary relationship between benefiting others and being moral or immoral. The author also ignores that demolishing the base might be even more beneficial for everyone than using the base for other purposes.

A
fails to consider that an action may be morally permissible even if an alternative course of action is to everyone’s advantage
The author fails to consider that an action (demolishing) may be morally permissible even if an alternative course of action (using the base for other purposes) is to everyone’s advantage. (A) shows that the author’s premise doesn’t establish demolishing the building was immoral.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the actual consequences of an action are irrelevant to the action’s moral permissibility
The author doesn’t assume that actual consequences are irrelevant. After all, one actual consequence of demolishing is that the base can’t be used for the purposes described. This is something the author takes into account and uses in the argument.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that the government never acts in the most efficient manner
The author’s argument concerns only the demolishing of the former naval base. The author concludes that this action was inefficient. That doesn’t commit the author to an assumption that the government never acts in the most efficient way.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that any action that is efficient is also moral
The author does not assume that if an action is efficient, then it must be moral. The conclusion is that the government’s action was inefficient and also immoral. This doesn’t commit the author to a belief about a conditional relationship between efficiency and morality.
E
inappropriately treats two possible courses of action as if they were the only options
The author does not treat demolishing the base and using it for other purposes as the only options. For example, maybe the government could have left the base up and just abandoned it completely. The author doesn’t assume this wasn’t possible.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply