Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 53 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 124 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 52 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 135 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Philosopher: Graham argues that since a person is truly happy only when doing something, the best life is a life that is full of activity. But we should not be persuaded by Graham’s argument. People sleep, and at least sometimes when sleeping, they are truly happy, even though they are not doing anything.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The philosopher concludes that we should be skeptical of Graham’s argument. Graham starts with the premise that you need to be doing something in order to be truly happy, and uses that premise to conclude that the best life must be full of activity. But the philosopher disagrees with Graham’s premise—she notes that while sleeping, people can be truly happy even through they’re doing nothing.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is a premise of the philosopher’s argument. It provides a counterexample to Graham’s only premise by illustrating that “doing something” isn’t actually a requirement for a person to be truly happy. By undermining Graham’s premise, the claim in the question stem in turn casts doubt on Graham’s overall argument.
A
It is a premise of Graham’s argument.
It is a premise of the philosopher’s argument, not Graham’s. It directly contradict’s Graham’s premise.
B
It is an example intended to show that a premise of Graham’s argument is false.
Sleeping is an example of an activity that runs completely counter to Graham’s premise. If, while sleeping, people can be truly happy while doing nothing at all, then Graham’s premise (that people must do something in order to be truly happy) must be false.
C
It is an analogy appealed to by Graham but that the philosopher rejects.
It is the philosopher’s own premise—the philosopher does not reject it. It is also not an analogy; it is a direct example of an activity that runs counter to Graham’s premise.
D
It is an example intended to disprove the conclusion of Graham’s argument.
The philosopher doesn’t go so far as to say that the best life is not a life that is full of activity. In fact, she doesn’t take any position on what the best life entails. She merely calls Graham’s conclusion into question by rejecting his premise.
E
It is the main conclusion of the philosopher’s argument.
It is a premise for the philosopher’s main conclusion. The fact that people can be truly happy while not doing anything undermines Graham’s only premise, which in turns supports the philosopher’s conclusion that we should be skeptical of Graham’s argument.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 52 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012This is a Sufficient Assumption question so our job is to add a premise to make the existing argument valid.
It's a very difficult question because you had to realize that they fed you the definition of "prudent" in the premises. The definition is "forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence."
If you can't get over that hurdle, you're likely getting this question wrong.
Assuming you made that connection, then replace that long definition in the premises with the word "prudent" and you should see that this is like any other SA question.
Premise in English: being prudent will make people resent you.
Premise in Lawgic: P --> R
Conclusion in English: appearing prudent is imprudent
Conclusion in Lawgic: P --> Imp
What's the missing SA?
SA in Lawgic: R --> Imp
SA in English: making people resent you is imprudent.
That's (E)
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 134 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012This is a Sufficient Assumption question so our job is to add a premise to make the existing argument valid.
It's a very difficult question because you had to realize that they fed you the definition of "prudent" in the premises. The definition is "forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence."
If you can't get over that hurdle, you're likely getting this question wrong.
Assuming you made that connection, then replace that long definition in the premises with the word "prudent" and you should see that this is like any other SA question.
Premise in English: being prudent will make people resent you.
Premise in Lawgic: P --> R
Conclusion in English: appearing prudent is imprudent
Conclusion in Lawgic: P --> Imp
What's the missing SA?
SA in Lawgic: R --> Imp
SA in English: making people resent you is imprudent.
That's (E)
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 51 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012