Q9 - Every action has consequences

[ldanny24]

Hi, I chose D for this one, though after I reviewed I see the necessary/sufficient distinction. In that, performing an action is a sufficient condition to create consequences for that action but doesn't necessarily mean consequences of an action must come only from actions. They can come from other means.

Anyways, I'm not sure how to crack E. Is it because consequences and actions can be used synonymously? Since every action creates consequences which are themselves actions. Is the stimulus pretty much saying,

"And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good"

For

"And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its actions are good", thus E? Thanks in advance.

[bbirdwell]

Let's start with the core of the argument.

Premises:
1. Action --> consequences --> other actions

2. know an action is good --> know whether consequences are good

3. Cannot know the future.

Conclusion:
1. there are no good actions

Next, evaluate the logic and spot any potential gaps before going to the choices. I see a couple. One is the concept of future -- it's not explicitly connected to consequences, therefore the author must be assuming that knowing consequences means knowing the future.

The second gap I spot is a vintage LSAT language shift. Notice how the evidence is all based on knowing -- knowing whether an action is good, and knowing whether the consequences are good.

Then, all of a sudden, the conclusion switches to being -- there can be no good actions.

So, according to this argument, there can BE no good actions because we can't KNOW whether actions are good.

That's not good logic. Just because i don't KNOW something doesn't mean that that something doesn't exist. Do you see that distinction?

With that in mind, while the correct answer might hinge upon the "future" concept, it's more likely that the right answer will somehow connect knowing good with being good, as that's what this argument requires in order to function.

(A) Eliminate. This is not required by the argument at all.

(B) Eliminate. Out of scope.

(C) Eliminate. Out of scope ("refraining...")

(D) Eliminate. Doesn't matter. In fact, this is contradicted by the argument, which says that actions are AMONG the consequences of actions, which suggests that there are consequences that are not actions.

(E) Correct! Double check it by negating it. If an action can be good without us KNOWING that it's good, then the whole argument falls apart.

See that?

[ldanny24]

Ahhhh. I feel like stabbing myself in the foot for over thinking this one. It's SO simple. Going from knowing something to being something was for some lame reason invisible to me when I took this test. Thanks for lighting the path.

[mtd4mx]

Why is the premise

know an action is good --> know whether consequences are good

instead of

know whether consequences are good-->know an action is good ?