The short answer
The major ethical frameworks — so you can analyse any moral argument in Section I and II.
Written and checked by GAMSAT tutors — not AI-generated.
Try the reasoning style
We treat forgetting as a failure — a lapse to be patched with reminders and records. Yet a mind that kept everything could not think; it would drown in the undifferentiated noise of every moment it had ever lived. To forget is not so much to lose information as to decide, mostly without our noticing, what was never worth keeping.
The author's argument relies most directly on which unstated assumption?
Pick an option to see how the tutor reasons to the answer — not just whether you were right.
Not quite — the answer is B.
Work backwards from the conclusion: a mind that ‘kept everything’ supposedly ‘could not think.’ That only follows if thinking means leaving most of experience out — so B is the premise the argument quietly rests on. A raises reliability, which the passage never weighs; C contradicts ‘mostly without our noticing’; D smuggles in a claim about intellect the passage never makes. The question rewards finding the hidden premise, not recalling a fact.
Section I passages and Section II prompts love moral dilemmas. You don't need to be a philosopher, but knowing the main frameworks lets you see why people disagree — and write or analyse a moral argument with real structure.
Three lenses on any moral question
Consequentialism / utilitarianism: judge an act by its outcomes — the right act produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Deontology: judge by duties and rules — some acts are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the result (Kant). Virtue ethics: judge by character — what would a good, honest person do?
Utilitarian vs deontological
Utilitarian (outcomes)
- Ends can justify the means
- Weighs costs vs benefits
- Flexible, case-by-case
- Risk: can justify harming a few for the many
Deontological (duties)
- Some acts are always wrong
- Rules/rights are non-negotiable
- Consistent, principled
- Risk: rigid even when outcomes are terrible
Worked example
An argument runs: "We should divert the runaway trolley to kill one worker instead of five, because five lives saved outweighs one lost." Which framework is this, and how would a deontologist object?
Check yourself
"Lying is wrong even if it would produce a better outcome." This claim is most characteristic of:
Check yourself
'The last ventilator should go to the patient most likely to survive, because that produces the greatest total benefit.' Which framework is this, and what is the strongest objection from a rival one?
Check yourself
A doctor argues that she must disclose her own error 'because honesty is part of what it is to be a good doctor, whatever comes of it.' Which framework does this most closely fit?
Key takeaways
- Utilitarian/consequentialist: judge by outcomes (greatest good).
- Deontological: judge by duties and rules (some acts always wrong).
- Virtue ethics: judge by character (what a good person would do).
- Identify the lens an argument uses to find its strongest objection.
- The deepest essays acknowledge the tension between frameworks, not just one side.
Practise this with real GAMSAT-style questions
A timed diagnostic, real practice questions with worked explanations, and your first essay marked on our rubric built from ACER's two published criteria.