LSAT Explanation PT 23, S3, Q21: Helen: It was wrong of my

LSAT Question Stem

The justification Helen offers for her judgment of Mark's behavior is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the justification 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. Helen claims that it was wrong for her brother Mark to lie to their mother about missing her birthday party due to a traffic accident when, in reality, he had simply forgotten about the party. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: Saying something that is false is always morally wrong.

Premise: Mark lied about being in a traffic accident.

Conclusion: It was wrong for Mark to lie about the reason for missing the party.

The question type is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the vulnerability in Helen's justification for her judgment of Mark's behavior.

Now, let's discuss each answer choice:

a) This answer choice is incorrect because the distinction between saying something false and failing to say something true is irrelevant to Helen's argument. She is focused on Mark's lie, which is a false statement, not on any omission of truth.

b) This answer choice is incorrect because Helen doesn't assume that forgetting the party was the only reason Mark missed it. She explicitly states that Mark forgot. The argument doesn't involve eliminating other possible causes for Mark missing the party, only that his lie about the traffic accident was morally wrong.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because Helen's argument is about Mark's behavior, which is within his control. She judges his decision to lie, not something outside of his control.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because Helen's argument doesn't rely on an appeal to pity. The conclusion logically follows from the premises without any emotional manipulation.

e) This answer choice is correct. Helen's argument attempts to justify her judgment about Mark's behavior by citing a general principle that lying is always morally wrong. This principle, however, is a strong and inflexible claim that may need more support than the specific judgment about Mark's behavior. In other words, it might be easier to argue that Mark's lie was wrong in this particular case rather than trying to defend the absolute principle that lying is always morally wrong.

To help clarify the argument, consider this simple example: A child lies to their parent about finishing their homework to avoid getting in trouble. The child's lie could be seen as wrong in this specific case, but it doesn't necessarily mean that lying is always morally wrong in every situation.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Are there any situations in which lying is not morally wrong?" This question addresses the validity of the general principle that lying is always morally wrong, which is crucial to Helen's argument.