LSAT Question Explanation
PT 105, Section 1, Question 11
Identify the RoleArgument structure
When determining moral responsibility, the role of free will is not always considered in the same way.
We hold criminals morally responsible for their actions on the assumption that they're acting with free will. But we don't hold someone morally responsible if they have a heart attack and cause a car crash, even though they could have freely chosen to eat a healthier diet which could have helped prevent the car crash.
Explanation
This argument proceeds by making a claim that free will is not always considered to play the same role in determining responsibility, and then it gives two examples where free will is treated differently. These examples (criminals held responsible for free decisions, heart attack sufferers not held responsible) prove the conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is part of the example related to heart attack victims not being held responsible, which is one of the examples that supports the conclusion. So I'm looking for an answer choice that says that claim is evidence.
Answer choices
The claim in the question stem definitely isn't a sub-conclusion because it isn't supported by anything in the stimulus. It's just a premise that's introduced to us by the author.
No, this wasn't being argued in the argument. The second example said that we generally don't hold people responsible for damages caused by heart attacks while driving, it doesn't say anything about whether we should.
Again, the author doesn't make any claims about what we should do. The author just claims that in practice we sometimes assign different responsibility to acts of free will.
This isn't argued for in the stimulus. The two examples just show situations where we treat acts of free will differently. There's no discussion about what should be done in either situation.
This is exactly what we predicted. The claim in question is part of the evidence, supporting the conclusion.