Principle JustifyDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A campaign manager says it's okay for their candidate to be a bit secretive about the downsides of his plans because he needs to win to do good work, and you can't win if you're too honest.
Conclusion: The candidate's decision to withhold the negative consequences of his policies is acceptable.
Reasoning: Winning the election is impossible with full transparency, and it is crucial that the candidate wins to implement a beneficial political agenda.
Analysis: This argument is a classic 'the ends justify the means' scenario. To justify the reasoning, we need a principle that bridges the gap between the necessity of winning and the ethics of withholding information. Look for an answer choice that establishes a rule where achieving a significantly positive outcome (the agenda) outweighs the obligation to be fully candid, especially when candor would prevent that outcome. It’s a bit cynical, but in the world of campaign logic, the goal is to find a rule that makes this trade-off permissible.
Conclusion: The candidate's decision to withhold the negative consequences of his policies is acceptable.
Reasoning: Winning the election is impossible with full transparency, and it is crucial that the candidate wins to implement a beneficial political agenda.
Analysis: This argument is a classic 'the ends justify the means' scenario. To justify the reasoning, we need a principle that bridges the gap between the necessity of winning and the ethics of withholding information. Look for an answer choice that establishes a rule where achieving a significantly positive outcome (the agenda) outweighs the obligation to be fully candid, especially when candor would prevent that outcome. It’s a bit cynical, but in the world of campaign logic, the goal is to find a rule that makes this trade-off permissible.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage2.Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the campaign manager's argument?
Correct Answer
A
It directly supplies the needed bridge: ethically questionable acts can sometimes be justified by their good consequences. Given the premises—that full candor prevents election and election is vitally important for a positive agenda—this principle licenses the candidate’s limited candor as justified.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal