Bunuel wrote:
Moralist: Immoral actions are those that harm other people. But since such actions eventually harm those who perform them, those who act immorally do so only through ignorance of some of their actions’ consequences rather than through a character defect.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the moralist’s argument?
(A) People ignorant of their actions’ consequences cannot be held morally responsible for those consequences.
(B) An action harms those who perform it only if it also eventually harms others.
(C) Only someone with a character defect would knowingly perform actions that eventually harm others.
(D) Those who, in acting immorally, eventually harm themselves do not intend that harm.
(E) None of those who knowingly harm themselves lack character defects.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
How does this guy know I would never intentionally harm myself? Even if his facts are valid (immoral actions are those that harm other people; these actions eventually harm oneself) that does not justify his conclusion that anybody that does an immoral act must be ignorant of the harm that results. Maybe I
know I’m only hurting myself every time I sneak behind the church for a cigarette. Maybe a crackhead knows he's hurting himself every time he steals a car stereo to pay for crack. Maybe he knows it, and just doesn't give a ****.
We’re asked to identify a Necessary Assumption, and I’m pretty sure we’ve already nailed it. The moralist has assumed that I would never intentionally harm myself. If that’s not true—if it is possible that I
would intentionally harm myself—then how could the moralist’s argument possibly make sense?
A) No, the argument is simply not about holding people “morally responsible.”
B) This isn’t what we’re looking for. It has some of the right words, but they’re arranged in a useless order.
C) I really think the character defect thing is just a red herring. We need an answer that says, as clearly as possible, “Nobody would intentionally harm themselves.” This isn’t it.
D) There we go. This one basically says, “Nobody would intentionally harm themselves.” If this answer is untrue, then it’s possible that I just don’t give a **** if I’m harming myself, which would ruin the moralist’s argument. That means this statement is “necessary” to the argument.
E) Nope, D was exactly what we were looking for, and this isn’t. This is a question where it’s really not worth analyzing the incorrect answer choices. You either affirmatively identify the correct answer (probably before even looking at the answer choices) or you’re going to struggle. Sorry, but there’s no way around that. Practice, and you’ll get there.
The answer is D.