LSAT-1999-12-SECTIONVI-24

24. It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if it benefits another person and was performed with that intention; whereas an action that harms another person is morally bad either if such harm was intended or if reasonable forethought would have shown that the action was likely to cause harm.

Which one of the following judgments most closely confirms to the principle cited above?

(A) Pamela wrote a letter attempting to cause trouble between Edward and his friends; this action of Pamela’s was morally bad, even though the letter, in fact, had an effect directly opposite from the one intended.

(B) In order to secure a promotion, Jeffery devoted his own time to resolving a backlog of medical benefits claims; Jeffrey’s action was morally good since it alone enabled Sara’s claim to be processed in time for her to receive much-needed treatment.

(C) Intending to help her elderly neighbor by clearing his walkway after a snowstorm, Teresa inadvertently left ice on his steps; because of this exposed ice, her neighbor had a bad fall, thus showing that morally good actions can have bad consequences.

(D) Marilees, asked by a homeless man for food, gave the man her own sandwich; however, because the man tried to talk while he was eating the sandwich, it caused him to choke, and thus Marilees unintentionally performed a morally bad action.

(E) Jonathan agreed to watch his three-year-old niece while she played but, becoming engrossed in conversion, did not see her run into the street where she was hit by a bicycle; even though he intended no harm, Jonathan's action was morally bad.

E is the key, which is understandable. Why not A?

Morally good → Benefit others & performed with good intention; so contrapostive is:

not Benefit others OR not performed with good intention → Morally bad

(A) states that Pamela does not have a good intention, even though in the end the letter does not cause the harm, it shall satisfy one of the two conditions to be morally bad.

Any body could help?