LSAT 104 – Section 1 – Question 17

LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 17

December 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:18

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT104 S1 Q17
+LR
Argument part +AP
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
6%
160
B
71%
170
C
1%
156
D
3%
160
E
20%
165
143
156
169
 +Harder 149.106 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

The stable functioning of a society depends upon the relatively long-term stability of the goals of its citizens. This is clear from the fact that unless the majority of individuals have a predictable and enduring set of aspirations, it will be impossible for a legislature to craft laws that will augment the satisfaction of the citizenry, and it should be obvious that a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens.

Summarize Argument
The author claims that for a society to be stable, its citizens must have stable goals. This is a conditional claim, which is supported by chaining together two conditional premises. One premise is that a stable society necessitates laws that increase the happiness of its citizens. The other is that creating laws which increase citizens’ happiness requires most people to have “a predictable and enduring set of aspirations”, i.e. stable goals.
P1. stable society → laws increase happiness
P2. laws increase happiness → stable goals
Therefore, stable society → stable goals

Identify Argument Part
The claim that “a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens” is one of the premises used to establish the conclusion.

A
It is the conclusion of the argument.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is a premise used to reach the conclusion. It’s not supported by anything else, so can’t be a conclusion.
B
It helps to support the conclusion of the argument.
This correctly identifies that the claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is one of the author’s premises. It supports the conclusion, and has no other role in the argument.
C
It is a claim that must be refuted if the conclusion is to be established.
The argument doesn’t contain any claims that need to be refuted. The author takes both premises for granted, and they validly yield the conclusion. It’s that simple, no refutation involved.
D
It is a consequence of the argument.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness that increase happiness can’t be a consequence of anything because nothing else leads to it. It’s just stated without any support.
E
It is used to illustrate the general principle that the argument presupposes.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness doesn’t illustrate anything. It combines with another premise to lead to the conclusion, but not by providing an example.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 104 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply