I'm an LSAT instructor and I've been stuck on the following LSAT question ever since I first saw it.
This question is in the only freely available LSAT (Section 3, #18). If this question is wrong that means it's been misdirecting people for over 10 years, URMs and the poor especially. Please take the time to consider this question.
In all cultures, it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one's family from being harmed. Thus, few would deny that if a person is known by the person's parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. Hence, it is also likely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct the police in their work.
The reasoning in the editorialist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
Correct Answer Choice
Fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm.
The question requires takers to pick the answer choice that points out the assumption in the argument's reasoning. Here the gap is between the concepts of moral duty and morally right. So, the argument assumes that people widely believe that performing one's moral duty is always morally right.
The problem with the answer choice is that it tells us the premise (the first sentence) is false. In the logical reasoning section of the LSAT, takers must accept all premises are always true.
The premise states that people widely believe they have a duty to X. So, we have to assume they believe this duty is always imposed on those with family.
This answer choice, however, states that duty to X is sometimes considered overridden by other moral principles.
IMO whenever a duty is overridden, that means that duty is no longer imposed while it's overridden regardless of which definition of override is used.
In other words, the duty may still exist in other contexts, but in a context where it's overridden, there's no penalty for breaching the duty. By definition, if there is no penalty for breach, that means there is no duty.
So, this answer choice is essentially saying that sometimes people widely believe there is no duty to X which is a contradiction of the premise (people widely believe there is always a duty to do X).
As I said earlier, takers are not allowed to contradict premises. So, while this answer choice does show that performing one's moral duty is sometimes not morally right, it only does so by contradicting the premise.
I am looking for a way to interpret this answer choice that doesn't contradict the premise but exposes the flaw.