We’ve got a most strongly supported question/fill in the blank question which we can deduce from the question stem which reads: Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?
We start out with a statement about humans only being able to live happily in a society where love and friendship are the primary motivators. How touching! But also...confusing! Luckily, we have a way of making sense of this: conditional logic.
This statement translates quite readily into a conditional: Human Happiness →Love+Friendship are Primary Motivators for Actions (L+FPM).
Next we get a statement telling us that economic needs CAN BE satisfied in the absence of this condition. This condition is a referential phrase referring back to the second condition in the last sentence: L+FPM. So all we know is that economic needs being satisfied (ENS) is completely independent of L+FPM. They have no bearing on one another! If L+FPM are not present, we could have ENS, but we also could not. If ENS is present we likewise, cannot conclude anything about L+FPM.
Before we move on, what does this tell us about the relationship between ENS and HH? Well we know that if humans are happy then we are definitely living in a society where love and friendship are the primary motives for actions. We likewise know that if we are NOT living in a society where love and friendship are the primary motives for actions:
- Humans are NOT happy
- Economic needs can possibly be satisfied (remember that L+FPM has no bearing on ENS)
What does this tell us about the relationship between HH and ENS? Well, there isn’t one. At least not one that is proven out by our stimulus! (I don’t know about you but I’m certainly a bit happier when my economic needs can be satisfied but that’s another discussion for another day!) The point is: HH requires L+FPM. L+FPM has no bearing on ENS. From what we know–HH and ENS are not linked in any way. They could coincide, they could not.
Then we get an example of ENS in the absence of L+FPM: a merchant society, where the only thing that motivates action is economic utility. The implication here is that in a merchant society, we can have ENS but L+F are not the primary motivators because only economic utility (EU) motivates actions.
Onto the answers:
Answer Choice (A) Is there a relationship between economic utility and human happiness? No! We know that we need L+F to be primary motives, but this does not prevent there from being other motivations for actions. In order to rule out human happiness, EU cannot be the only motivator (because that would prevent L+F from being motivators).
Answer Choice (B) What did we establish about the link between HH and ENS? There is none! It’s a fallacy! Who needs money??!? Ok again, let’s not get sidetracked. There probably is a common sense link between being able to meet your economic needs and being happy, but as far as this stimulus is concerned–there is no link! Therefore we cannot conclude that this answer choice is correct.
Answer Choice (C) Tough to see any support here. We haven’t heard a peep about family and friends until this AC. I suppose you could see interacting with family and friends as something that would occur in a society where L-F are the primary motivators? We’re going way out on an assumption limb here…let’s scurry back to the safety of our stimulus (ok, I’m sorry for that one).
Correct Answer Choice (D) Remember what we established about the link between HH and ENS? There is none! It doesn’t exist! That’s what D is telling us. We can do one without the other. Not “we will” or “we must,” but it’s possible. There’s no definitive link here.
Answer Choice (E) This answer posits a conditional connection between HH and ENS (/H→/ENS or ENS→HH). As we’ve established, there is no such connection, so this answer is incorrect.
Human beings can live happily only in a society where love and friendship are the primary motives for actions. Yet economic needs can be satisfied in the absence of this condition, as, for example, in a merchant society where only economic utility motivates action. It is obvious then that human beings _______.
Summary
People must live in a society primarily motivated by love and friendship in order to be happy. However, their economic needs can still be met outside of such a society. For example, humans’ economic needs can be met in a society that’s just motivated by economic utility.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Human beings can have their economic needs met and still be unhappy.
Human beings cannot be happy in a society motivated primarily by economic utility.
A
can live happily only when economic utility is not a motivator in their society
This is unsupported. The stimulus says that love and friendship must be the primary motivators of a society in order for people to be happy. As far as we know, economic utility can still be one of the society’s motivators, it just must not be the primary motivator.
B
cannot achieve happiness unless their economic needs have already been satisfied
This is unsupported. The satisfaction of economic needs is not presented as necessary for happiness. Rather, a society motivated by love and friendship is necessary. Perhaps one could live in a society motivated by love, be economically unsatisfied, and still be happy.
C
cannot satisfy economic needs by means of interactions with family members and close friends
This is unsupported. The stimulus does not give us any information about whether a person can or cannot satisfy their economic needs through family and friends. We only know that economic needs can be satisfied in a society “where only economic utility motivates action.”
D
can satisfy their basic economic needs without obtaining happiness
This is strongly supported. Humans must live in a society primarily motivated by love and friendship in order to obtain happiness. Humans can satisfy their basic economic needs outside of such a society. Thus, humans can satisfy their economic needs without obtaining happiness.
E
cannot really be said to have satisfied their economic needs unless they are happy
This is anti-supported. The stimulus tells us that humans can satisfy their economic needs in a society primarily motivated by economic utility. In such a society, people are not happy. So a person does not need to be happy in order to be economically satisfied.