Self-study
Sociologist: Research shows, contrary to popular opinion, that, all other things being equal, Support most people who have pets are less happy than most people who do not. ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ █ ████
Summarize Argument
The sociologist concludes that any person who wants to maximize their happiness should consider not owning a pet. This is based on data saying that, in general, pet owners are less happy than people who don’t have pets.
Notable Assumptions
The sociologist assumes causation -- pets causing a decrease in happiness -- from a general trend, or correlation. This overlooks the possibility that, say, pets actually increase happiness, but pet owners tend to start from a lower level of happiness to begin with.
24.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████████ █████████
a
Some people who ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ████
Remember that \"some\" on the LSAT just means \"at least one\". The argument's premise is about a general trend, so simply saying that there are potential outliers to that trend wouldn't weaken the argument.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
b
Most people who ████ ██ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████
It's not important if the people without pets occasionally wish they had pets, so long as the data shows that they are generally happier than people with pets, as the stimulus says. This wouldn't weaken the argument.
c
Most people who ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████
Knowing that these people are \"reasonably happy\" doesn't diminish the fact that they are still less happy than people without pets, or that they might still not be \"as happy as possible\".
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
d
Most people who ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ █████
If pets generally have a positive effect on happiness, then it makes sense for someone who is unhappy, and wants to be as happy as possible, to get a pet. This is true even if someone else might have a generally higher level of happiness without having a pet. This answer choice weakens the argument.
Alternate explanation
Alternate explanation
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
e
All people who ████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████████
Even if this is true, it doesn't defeat the premise that these people, even if they all feel unhappy sometimes, are generally happier than people with pets. We would just have to infer, for example, that people with pets feel unhappy even more often. So this doesn't weaken the argument.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.