PT 66 Section 2 Question 13: Brooks: I'm unhappy in my....

schyler.cox

Okay, this question has got me. I'm BRing it, and I honestly cannot rule one answer out with confidence. That never happens. A, C, and D all seem pretty subjective to me, "mischaracterizing what Brooks says", "unhappiness varying in intensity of significance" ....are these not more ambiguous and generic than usual, or am I crazy? (actually, please don't answer that, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer) lol.
Could a kind soul please explain which one is correct, why, and why the other 4 are incorrect?
Thank you!

nye8870

(A) Correct. It does this. Just because Brooks is unhappy with his current job does not mean he won’t become significantly –more- unhappy if he is unemployed.
(B) This ac is basically calling Morg’s argument circular, but it is not. Morg offers a Premise that the risk is Brooks can’t find another job and if he doesn’t find another job he’ll be unhappy anyways. It’s flawed because of ac(A) but it is not circular.
(C) I think the risks that Brooks is talking about are characterized appropriately: That he may not find another job which would lead to unhappiness.
(D) So far as I can see, the only risk which is being talked about directly is the possibility of not finding a new job. I do not see any conflation.
(E) Morg’s advice is particularly for Brooks and therefore is not a generalization.

-That's my take.

schyler.cox

Thanks for your quick response!!!
Hmmm. I do see why A would be correct, but I guess the lack of structural logic gave me trouble here. It seems to be more about understanding human emotions which seems super rare for the LSAT to throw at us. I was looking for a logical flaw, but I guess he just was viewing unhappiness differently.
the only thing that I'm still iffy about, after your explanations, is D. Morg says "the only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job." But why does Morg stating that make it true? Brooks could have other risks in mind, like being thrown out of his apartment, or not being able to eat because he has no money. Is it wrong because he doesn't DIRECTLY mention two kinds, so if he doesn't DIRECTLY mention them, he can't exactly conflate them?

nye8870

I think you are exactly right. Morgan acknowledges Brooks will be unhappy if he can't find another job. What he does not factor in is all the things you said (apt, hungry) which would/could lead to a much greater degree of unhappiness. This is really where Morgan's reasoning goes awry. He is looking at happiness as either Happy or Unhappy. As we all know happiness just doesn't work like that.

nye8870

Conflate: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole. I don't see that happening here.

schyler.cox

Thank you @nye8870 for your help! it definitely makes sense now.

nye8870

Cool... Happy studying!