#4 - Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience

[bk1111]

Hi,

I got this question right, but I was deliberating between A and C for some time. Why exactly is A wrong? I eliminated it because I thought Julia more than "strongly questions" Marie's conclusion...she rejects it by saying "Nonsense! ...I am not morally entitled..." But I am confused by the second part of the answer choice (A) that says "while accepting that principle."

Thank you!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Answer choice (A) states that Julia accepts the principle offered by Marie. This is the opposite of what Julia does. Julia abstracts the reasoning Marie gives to show how in a separate situation, Marie would have to disagree with the principle - it is not morally wrong to take something if you do not trick, threaten, or physically force someone - that she originally used.

[tetsuya0129]

Hi Powerscore staff,

I had a question regarding "the opposite of Marie's" on (C): Why "not morally entitled to keep it" is the opposite of "not morally wrong to keep it"?

For me, "not morally wrong" can mean morally allowable/permissible. By contrast, "not morally entitled to keep it" only refer to the lack of moral entitlements to keep it.

Could you please help explain?
Thank you.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi tetsuya0129,

The nice thing here is that we know LSAC believes that what was said is opposite in some sense, so in review we want to determine how they see this. From what you said, I think you made an analysis of the language that goes beyond what is there, and overlooked what is really happening between the two speakers.

To put it in basic terms, Marie's conclusion here is that it is acceptable to keep the money. Julia's conclusion is that you shouldn't keep the money (or coat, in her example). Those are opposite courses of action, and (C) aptly describes that scenario.

Thanks!

[PresidentLSAT]

For choice E, will a 'radically principle" be something like " it is wrong to keep it if you can reasonably expect to know the cashier will get into trouble?"

Julia makes some form of judgment by using an analogy to illustrate that Marie is wrong. This is why I ruled it out.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi PresidentLSAT!

Answer Choice E states that Julia's response: "proposes a radically different principle by which Marie’s action might be judged, but reserves judgment as to whether Marie acted rightly."

This answer choice is wrong for multiple reasons:
1) Marie sets forth the following principle in her argument: "I did not trick, threaten or physically force the cashier into giving me the extra money, therefore, it was not morally wrong for me to keep it." Julia does not set forth a different principle by which Marie should be judged. Instead, she states that even though Marie adhered to this principle, that is not sufficient to determine that Marie's conclusions/actions were valid.
2) Julia does not reserve judgement-- rather, she states that Marie did not act rightly, and was not entitled to the money on the basis of following her principle.

I hope this helps!