Page 1 of 1

Test 38, Section 1, Question 19

Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:26 pm
by jeremychristiansen
I have no idea why this is the right answer choice. Can anyone PM me and tell explain it?

Re: Test 38, Section 1, Question 19

Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 pm
by malfurion
Yeah, I remember doing that one, it was tricky. There's a pretty good explanation in this thread:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=67692

Re: Test 38, Section 1, Question 19

Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:42 am
by Atlas LSAT Brian
Yeah, I think the most important thing on this one is to avoid getting tangled up i the choices. That begins with a clear analysis of the argument. Here's what we have:

if something's intrinsically valuable --> happiness
(note the "only" means "right side of the conditional arrow")

Some philosophers (just by this setup "Some ___," we can anticipate that the author will disagree somehow):
b/c we don't like it when bad ppl are happy, if we value happiness --> it's deserved

BUT (here comes the author's counter): deserved happiness is determined by happiness brought to others!

Therefore _________.

Before going to the choices, we should anticipate that whatever follows will be a summation of the author's position as counter to the philosophers'. So the correct answer could say something so simple as "The philosophers are mistaken," or could state that what the philosophers said is incorrect: "We do not only value happiness when it's deserved".... or something along those lines.

(A) "ultimately incoherent?" Not even close. Too extreme, plus incorrect. The author says that deserved happiness is determined by happiness brought to others. This doesn't make it "incoherent."

(B) "as much as they think they do?" Nothing about what is vs what ppl think is mentioned.

(C) Yes. "understood in terms of happiness" -- specifically, the happiness brought to others.

(D) "Only way?" "bring happiness to *those who deserve it*?" No.

(E) Out of scope."Truly bad?" Furthermore, we know nothing about how happy bad ppl can be.

Does that help?