A member of the British Parliament is reputed to have said, “The first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness. So, any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. Since the reform I propose would make my constituents happy, it is a good social reform.”

Summarize Argument
The member of Parliament claims his proposed social reform is a good one. Why? Because it will make his constituents happy, and since social reform is meant to increase human happiness, any reform must be achieving its purpose if it makes at least one person happy.

Notable Assumptions
The member of Parliament assumes any reform that makes at least one person happy must increase the total happiness of humans, and that any reform is good if it achieves its purpose.

A
Different things make different people happy.
This is fully compatible with the member of Parliament’s argument. By his reasoning, his reform will be good even if it only makes his constituents happy.
B
The proposed reform would make a few people happy, but would not increase the happiness of most other people.
This does not challenge the assumption that a reform will increase total human happiness if it makes at least one person happy. The proposed reform may make some people happy and leave everyone else unaffected, in which case it would be a good reform by his rule.
C
The proposed reform would affect only the member of Parliament’s constituents and would make them happy.
This strengthens the argument. If the only people affected by the reform are those it makes happier, then the proposed reform really does increase human happiness in total.
D
Increasing some people’s happiness might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others are made unhappy.
This challenges a key assumption—that any reform that makes somebody happy must make people happier overall. The proposed reform might decrease total human happiness, even if it pleases the member’s own constituents.
E
Good social reforms usually have widespread support.
This does not say a good reform must be popular. Nowhere does the member of parliament argue his reform would be good because it receives widespread support.

46 comments

This question presumes knowledge of these lessons on Lawgic:
https://7sage.com/lesson/contrapositives-demorgans-law

https://7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements

Don't worry if this question was tough. If you got it right, then you should feel great about yourself!


81 comments

Essayist: Wisdom and intelligence are desirable qualities. However, being intelligent does not imply that one is wise, nor does being wise imply that one is intelligent. In my own experience, the people I meet have one or the other of these qualities but not both.

Summary

Wisdom and intelligence are desirable.

Someone can be intelligent, but not wise.

Someone can be wise, but not intelligent.

In the speaker’s experience, people she meets have either intelligence or wisdom, but not both.

Notable Valid Inferences

Some people do not have both intelligence and wisdom.

A
Most people are neither intelligent nor wise.

Could be true. It’s possible most, or even all people in the world do not have both wisdom and intelligence. None of the facts indicates that there must be someone who has both wisdom and intelligence.

B
Most people are both intelligent and wise.

Could be true. Although (B) would be false if it were limited to the people the stimulus’s author has met, (B) isn’t limited to those people. Most people in the world could be both — the author just hasn’t met them.

C
No one is both wise and intelligent.

Could be true. The stimulus doesn’t say anything indicating that there must be at least one person who is both wise and intelligent. It’s possible nobody has both wisdom and intelligence.

D
No one is either wise or intelligent.

Must be false. The author said she knows people who have one of the qualities of wisdom or intelligence, but not both. That means there’s at least one person out there who has wisdom or intelligence..

E
Many people are intelligent and yet lack wisdom.

Could be true. The author said she knows people who have wisdom or intelligence, but not both. It’s possible many of those people are intelligent, but don’t have wisdom.

This question presumes knowledge of these lessons on Lawgic:
https://7sage.com/lesson/contrapositives-demorgans-law

https://7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements

Don't worry if this question was tough. If you got it right, then you should feel great about yourself!


90 comments