PT102.S4.Q24 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The sociologist concludes that any person who wants to maximize their happiness should consider not owning a pet. This is based on data saying that, in general, pet owners are less happy than people who don’t have pets.

The sociologist assumes causation -- pets causing a decrease in happiness -- from a general trend, or correlation. This overlooks the possibility that, say, pets actually increase happiness, but pet owners tend to start from a lower level of happiness to begin with.

Remember that \"some\" on the LSAT just means \"at least one\". The argument's premise is about a general trend, so simply saying that there are potential outliers to that trend wouldn't weaken the argument.

It's not important if the people without pets occasionally wish they had pets, so long as the data shows that they are generally happier than people with pets, as the stimulus says. This wouldn't weaken the argument.

Knowing that these people are \"reasonably happy\" doesn't diminish the fact that they are still less happy than people without pets, or that they might still not be \"as happy as possible\".

If pets generally have a positive effect on happiness, then it makes sense for someone who is unhappy, and wants to be as happy as possible, to get a pet. This is true even if someone else might have a generally higher level of happiness without having a pet. This answer choice weakens the argument.

Even if this is true, it doesn't defeat the premise that these people, even if they all feel unhappy sometimes, are generally happier than people with pets. We would just have to infer, for example, that people with pets feel unhappy even more often. So this doesn't weaken the argument.

PrepTest 102 - Section 4 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action