LSAT 131 – Section 1 – Question 06

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 06

December 2009

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:06

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
PT131 S1 Q06
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
2%
156
B
15%
160
C
80%
166
D
0%
156
E
3%
158
139
149
160
 +Medium 147.383 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Deirdre: Many philosophers have argued that the goal of every individual is to achieve happiness—that is, the satisfaction derived from fully living up to one’s potential. They have also claimed that happiness is elusive and can be achieved only after years of sustained effort. But these philosophers have been unduly pessimistic, since they have clearly exaggerated the difficulty of being happy. Simply walking along the seashore on a sunny afternoon causes many people to experience feelings of happiness.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Deirdre concludes that the philosophers have been unreasonably pessimistic because their argument exaggerates the difficulty of achieving happiness. As an example, she notes that walking along the beach on a sunny day makes many people feel happy.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in two different ways without acknowledging the shift in meaning.

Here, Deirdre says that the philosophers exaggerate the difficulty of being happy, noting that walking on the beach makes many people feel happy. However, the philosophers define happiness as "the satisfaction derived from fully living up to one’s potential," which is very different from the happy feelings that accompany walking on the beach. Deirdre doesn’t recognize the difference between these two meanings of "happiness."

A
It dismisses a claim because of its source rather than because of its content.
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Deirdre doesn’t make this mistake; she attacks the philosophers’ argument, not the philosophers themselves.
B
It fails to take into account that what brings someone happiness at one moment may not bring that person happiness at another time.
Even if walking on the beach brings someone happiness one day and not the next, this isn’t a flaw in Deirdre’s reasoning. She just argues that because people sometimes feel happy walking on the beach, it’s untrue that achieving happiness always requires years of sustained effort.
C
It allows the key term “happiness” to shift in meaning illicitly in the course of the argument.
The philosophers argue that it’s difficult to achieve happiness, which they define as the satisfaction of living up to one’s potential. Deirdre then argues that many people feel happy walking down the beach, but this is an entirely different meaning of the key term “happiness.”
D
It presumes, without providing justification, that happiness is, in fact, the goal of life.
The philosophers argue that “the goal of every individual is to achieve happiness,” but Deirdre never assumes that happiness is the goal of life. She just argues that the philosophers are too pessimistic in their argument about achieving happiness.
E
It makes a generalization based on the testimony of a group whose views have not been shown to be representative.
Deirdre doesn't mention the testimony of any group. Instead, she draws a conclusion about the philosophers’ argument based on a factual example about the feelings of many people when they walk on the beach.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply