Q19 - Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically

[bnuvincent]

I really didn't catch it what's in the stimulus. I choose D,but the answer is C. Some suggestions?

[bbirdwell]

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

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. This refers to the "but" statement at the end: deserved happiness "=" 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?

[bnuvincent]

Oh,yeah really. I get it now, I overlooked the fact that the author is trying to retort some philosophers, and mess the whole things up, Thx~

[noah]

Hi!
On 19, I chose E. I guess maybe the logic of the passage kinda threw me off. Could someone explain the passage and why C is correct?

Thanks in advance!!

[cyruswhittaker]

The argument opens with the author's opinion in the first sentence that all things are valued according to happiness. Then the author brings up an objection from the philosophers that we don't like to see bad people happy, so perhaps we have to qualify happiness with "deserve" and hence we find something else to be used besides happiness as the deciding factor (i.e. it's not intrinsically valuable). But then the author says that the happiness people deserve itself is valued upon the amount of happiness brought to others, so happiness is still the measure even in this scenario (countering the philosopher's objection).

[geverett]

Abstract philosophical questions always throw me for a loop. I got it right, but it's worth further investigation:

Premise 1: Happiness is the only thing which does not depend on anything external for it's value. Anything else is valuable only in regards to it's contribution to happiness.

Counter Premise: Some philosopher's argue that we find some things besides happiness to be intrinsically valuable, because not approving of a bad person being happy shows that we value happiness only in so far as it is deserved.

Premise 3: However, the happiness people deserve is determined by how much happiness they bring others.

Therefore, _____

Okay so we have to complete the sentence. I had a hard time full grasping the logic of the stimulus so I went in looking to work from clearly wrong to the right answer.

(A) This cannot at all be inferred from the stimulus. The point at issue is whether or not being "deserving or not deserving" of happiness can only be understood in terms of it's contribution to happiness or if the notion of being deserving or undeserving of happiness shows that something besides just happiness (being deserving or undeserving) can be understood as being valuable in and of itself. Tricky language. Please let me know if I can clarify any further.
(B) There is completely unsupported. Nowhere in the stimulus is there mention of a disconnect between how much people actually value happiness vs. how much people think they value happiness. Get rid of it.
(C) This basically says that someones deserving to be happy is to be understood in terms of happiness. Another way to think about this is that someones deserving to be happy can only be understood in terms of their contribution to happiness. So a person that deserve to be happy is only that way because of their contribution to the amount of happiness they bring others so once again deserving or not deserving happiness is still subservient to happiness.
(D) Bringing an amount of happiness to people is sufficient for one to deserve an amount of happiness, but nowhere is there mention of it being necessary to bring happiness to those who deserve it in order to be assured happiness. There is also no mention of assurances of happiness in the stimulus. Get rid of this.
(E) This is also not mentioned. Perhaps this person does not deserve to be happy, but that does not mean that he/she cannot actually be happy.

I feel like some of this might be too wordy. If any of it needs further clarification then please do not hesitate to let me know.

[irene122]

Could any one share how you plough through the stimulus? --whether do you diagram in this question? During the preptest I diagram it since I see "only" and predict the stimulus concerns certain level of conditional reasoning. But after reading through the whole stimulus I find diagramming in this question does not help at all.

So here's a dilemma: if confronting a stimulus with certain conditional reasoning sign (only, if, then, necessary etc.), should I diagram at the beginnning or read through the whole stimulus then decide whether to diagram (there's a tradeoff in time, diagramming at the beginning would be time-consuming; but not diagramming would be risky as you have not idea whether conditional reasoning plays a part in answer)

Any suggestion would be appreciated!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I agree whole heartedly that notation of conditional relationships does not do much to assist in answering this question. Let me address your primary question here first and then deal with the particular question at hand.

When should one use conditional logic. My view is that I begin notating once I determine that conditional logic will be of use to me - not before, and not after I've completed reading the stimulus. it's not a formulaic thing, it's simply based on when I decide I need it.

Here are 4 things that I look for to help me assess when to use conditional logic.

1. Language cues implying conditional statements, such as "if, if only, all, unless, etc..."

2. The question type. Must be True, Must be False, Sufficient Assumptions, Match the Reasoning/Flaw, and Principle questions have increased use of conditional logic.

3. Repeated terms. In order for the argument to utilize the transitive property A --> B, B ---> C, so A ---> C there needs to be the repetition of terms so that they can weave through them.

4. The location of the question in the section. Somewhere between questions 7-11 we typically see the first question testing conditional logic, between 11-16 we see another one or so, and between 17-25 we see roughly 3 more. Questions that test conditional logic are skewed towards the end of the section.

There is no "smoking gun" so to speak that guarantees that conditional logic is the right way to go, but the accumulation of evidence can be overwhelming sometimes for using conditional logic.

In this case there are the language cues, repeated terms, and the question location is in the appropriate place, but the repeated terms aren't stated in a way that allows one to weave through the statements.

Additionally, the question stem asks us to find the main point of the speaker, and so here, the purpose of the author is almost as important as the statements of the author. The author is speaking against the philosophers and se we would want to shy away from conditional logic. Personally, I can't think of a question that asks you to identify or articulate the conclusion of the argument where conditional logic was helpful.

To this particular question... The philosophers claim that we value happiness only when it is deserved and that this supports the view that something besides happiness has intrinsic value. The conclusion is designed to refute this claim by suggesting that whether one deserves happiness is itself defined in terms of happiness, so it cannot count as something besides happiness that has intrinsic value - best expressed in answer choice (C).

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) challenges the wrong the claim. The argument is designed to refute the notation that something other than happiness has intrinsic value not the notion that people can be deserving of happiness.
(B) is on topic, but again challenges the wrong idea from the stimulus.
(D) can be easily dismissed since according to the stimulus we see requirements of happiness, but nothing that would assure happiness.
(E) relies on the unwarranted assumption that bad people do not make others happy.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you have further questions on this one!

[etwcho]

During my timed PT I had no clue what the stimulus was getting to (actually I'm still not sure if I get it now), but I knew the author was rebutting the philosophers, so I only focused on after "But the happiness..." to get to (C). I assumed that the author's POV would be concentrated in his rebuttal.

I thought that if happiness deserved is determined by the amount of happiness one brings, then it only makes sense that the judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness. And this insight is only strengthened by the first sentence, intrinsically valuable --> Happiness.

It's just like a currency. If one's richness is only determined by amount of $ you carry, then it's obvious that the judgment of richness is itself to be understood in terms $

Am I approaching this question too simply? Please let me know.