PT52.S3.Q17 - Philosopher: Graham argues that since a person

baret.amanda

In this question why do we "attack" the premise. I thought we don't really try to attack the premise but in this question it does. How often does this type of question show up on the LSAT? I understand this question just a little bit but I am unsure why the answer choice is what it is.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-17/

BinghamtonDave

52-3-17 is an argument part question. is this the question that you meant to reference? if so, we have to separate other people's argument (OPA) with the argument the philosopher is making.
So OPA basically states:
Premise: doing something is required for happiness
Conclusion: the best life is a life full of activity

The philosopher then comes in and concludes: we should not be persuaded by the argument.
because/premise: we have an instance where happy and doing something occur at the same time (effectively saying that doing something cannot be required for happiness). If doing something is not required for happiness then the foundation upon which OP's conclusion is based is no longer intact.

This happens sometimes, but is rare compared to the normal way of weakening the support.

Edit:clarity of OPA/conclusion

drbrown2

We aren't attacking the premise. Our job is to identify the part of the argument, not to evaluate the argument.

B and D are the only close ones, but D is wrong because the philosopher is not saying Graham's conclusion isn't true (in other words, the best life could still be one that is full of activity). B says that the argument part is an example of a situation not in conformity with Graham's premise.

A is wrong because the argument part we are identifying is not part of Graham's argument. C is wrong because Graham doesn't say anything about sleeping so he can't be appealing to it as an analogy. E is wrong because it is not a conclusion.

baret.amanda

Thank you for the clarification!