LSAT Explanation PT 34, S3, Q16: Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision,

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist's reasoning? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The ethicist presents the following:

Premise: A company signed a written agreement stating that the contractor would not be financially liable if the task was not adequately performed.

Conclusion: It was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution after a bungled construction job.

The question type is Principle, which asks us to identify the principle that best justifies the ethicist's reasoning.

Before discussing the answer choices, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question for the argument: "Is the company's agreement to not hold the contractor financially liable a valid reason to consider seeking restitution morally wrong?"

Now, let's examine the answer choices:

a) This answer choice states that it is morally wrong for one party not to abide by its part of an agreement only if the other party abides by its part of the agreement. While this might seem relevant, it doesn't provide a clear connection between the company's agreement and the conclusion that seeking restitution is morally wrong. It also doesn't address the specific situation in the passage.

b) This answer choice talks about seeking a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution. However, the passage doesn't mention the contractor's inability to make restitution. This choice is not directly relevant to the argument.

c) This answer choice talks about seeking to penalize another person for an action that the first person induced the other person to perform. This doesn't apply to the situation in the passage, as there's no mention of the company inducing the contractor to perform the bungled construction job.

d) This answer choice says it's morally wrong to ignore the terms of an agreement that was freely undertaken only if there is clear evidence that the agreement was legally permissible. The problem with this choice is that it sets a condition (clear evidence of legal permissibility) that isn't mentioned in the passage. It doesn't directly support the conclusion that seeking restitution is morally wrong.

e) This answer choice states that it is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise to forgo such compensation. This choice directly connects the company's agreement (the promise to forgo compensation) to the conclusion that seeking restitution is morally wrong. This is the correct answer.

In summary, the correct answer is E because it provides a clear connection between the company's agreement and the conclusion that seeking restitution is morally wrong. Other answer choices either don't address the specific situation in the passage or set conditions that are not mentioned in the passage.