Q6 - Deirdre: Many philosophers have argued

[dtangie23]

I narrowed this question down to choices (B) and (C). I incorrectly chose (B). Here's what I don't seem to understand about (C)...

Deirdre does indeed shift the meaning of happiness throughout the course of the argument. "Many philosophers" describe happiness as fully living up to one's potential and a state that can only be achieved after years of effort.

Deirdre cuts in and claims that these philosophers are being pessimistic because they have exaggerated the difficulty of attaining "happiness."

Deirdre then cites the example of simply walking on the shore and how such an act can make one happy.

To me, this is not a flaw in her reasoning. She is implicitly redefining "happiness" via this example. Deirdre is saying that these philosophers are pessimistic, meaning she disagrees with how they define happiness, because, look-- people can indeed enjoy happiness without the requisite condition of "years of sustained effort."

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[bbirdwell]

The first definition of happiness that she uses, in reference to the philosophers, is "satisfaction derived from fully living up to one's potential." Philosophers say this is hard work.

Later, she talks about walking on the beach on a sunny day bringing "feelings of happiness." Deirdre says this is easy, so the philosophers are wrong.

These kinds of happiness are clearly different kinds, and thus her argument is a bad one. The philosophers are not disproved, because their argument relies on a different definition of happiness than the kind brought about by walking on a sunny beach.

(B) is incorrect because the consistency of something bringing a person happiness doesn't play a role in the argument. In other words, happiness need not be permanent for the argument to function.

One thing that helps on questions like these is to focus on the conclusion when considering two final choices, asking yourself something like "Where is the flaw in saying that the philosophers are wrong?"

Hope that helps!

[chike_eze]

Finally got caught with my hand in the cookie jar.

I usually skip past answer choices like "C"; i.e., "term-X" shifts in meaning bla-bla-bla.

I too got it down to B and C -- chose B cos I usually say no to options like "C"! Plus, I wasn't sure about the flaw.

Lesson learned.

[shaynfernandez]

Same issue as everyone else who posted. Quick question, I noticed that this equivocation choice is rarely correct but I have seen a few times that it is correct that the author actually defines it. I don't see defining a word very often on flaw questions. Has anyone noticed a positive correlation between defining a word and this answer choice being correct, somewhat as a subtle indicator for us to take a closer look?

[joseph.carroll.555]

I got this wrong for the same reasons everyone else has stated (i.e. usually don't put too much thought into the shifting definition answers.) I reread through the problem though, and now I just want to make sure I understand. This is my thought process...

1. Many Philosophers say that the goal of every individual is to achieve happiness.

2. This group defines happiness as the satisfaction derived from fully living up to ones potential.

3. They also claim that happiness is achieved only with years of sustained effort.

Deirdre takes issue with 3. However, she uses an example of someone experiencing happiness simply by walking along the seashore on a sunny afternoon.

So is C correct because walking along the seashore on a sunny afternoon is not an example of "satisfaction derived from fully living up to ones potential"?

[sumukh09]

I got this wrong for the same reasons everyone else has stated (i.e. usually don't put too much thought into the shifting definition answers.) I reread through the problem though, and now I just want to make sure I understand. This is my thought process...

1. Many Philosophers say that the goal of every individual is to achieve happiness.

2. This group defines happiness as the satisfaction derived from fully living up to ones potential.

3. They also claim that happiness is achieved only with years of sustained effort.

Deirdre takes issue with 3. However, she uses an example of someone experiencing happiness simply by walking along the seashore on a sunny afternoon.

So is C correct because walking along the seashore on a sunny afternoon is not an example of "satisfaction derived from fully living up to ones potential"?

Exactly; they define happiness earlier in the argument in one way, but then use happiness in a different sense later in the argument.

[rinagoldfield]

Yes, great explanation, Joseph.Carroll.555

[lsatsidekick]

I had narrowed it down to B and C. I tried to relate each answer to the argument.

Answer B- I asked myself, "What thing happiness and then no longer brought happiness?"
I couldn't find an instance where "Thing A" brought happiness and then "Thing A" no longer brought happiness. Couldn't find a change.

Answer C- I asked myself, "How did the argument define happiness?"
1st: fully living up to one's potential
2nd: walking on the seashore

There is a complete disconnect between these 2 things. One is not equivalent to (or an example of) the other.

So I chose C.

[lsatsidekick]

I need help getting the core correct. I took this PT timed and would have wasted a lot of time figuring out the core if it was absolutely pertinent to answering the question. When reviewing, I reread the argument several times before I was willing to even write anything on the paper and I am still not 100% sure. I feel like I am all over the place trying to figure out the core.


1st Try
Premise-???
Intermediate Conclusion- Happiness is not elusive
Final Conclusion- Philosophers are unduly pessimistic
I scrapped this, because I couldn't identify a solid premise.

2nd Try
Premise- Philosophers argue the goal of everyone is to achieve happiness
Premise-Philosophers claim happiness is elusive
Premise-Philosophers have exaggerated the difficulty of being happy
Conclusion- Philosophers are unduly pessimistic
I don't think this is right either.

I'm so confused. Please help. What should I have paid attention to in order to get the core here?

[bho.check]

I need help getting the core correct. I took this PT timed and would have wasted a lot of time figuring out the core if it was absolutely pertinent to answering the question. When reviewing, I reread the argument several times before I was willing to even write anything on the paper and I am still not 100% sure. I feel like I am all over the place trying to figure out the core.


1st Try
Premise-???
Intermediate Conclusion- Happiness is not elusive
Final Conclusion- Philosophers are unduly pessimistic
I scrapped this, because I couldn't identify a solid premise.

2nd Try
Premise- Philosophers argue the goal of everyone is to achieve happiness
Premise-Philosophers claim happiness is elusive
Premise-Philosophers have exaggerated the difficulty of being happy
Conclusion- Philosophers are unduly pessimistic
I don't think this is right either.

I'm so confused. Please help. What should I have paid attention to in order to get the core here?

I think your second try is closer to what I wrote:

P1 Phils have argued that goal is to ACHIEVE happiness (definition: the satisfaction from fulfilling one's potential)
P2 The same Phils say happiness is elusive and takes years
P3 Walking on the beach, a simple task, gives FEELINGS of happiness
C These Phils are pessimistic that happiness is elusive and takes years

I chose (B) for the same reason a lot of the posters here did; usually a shift in definition answer isn't the correct one, but this shows you not to underestimate the lsat in such a fashion Nonetheless, even in my initial take of the question, I've highlighted that one of the main issues is the author's assumption that FEELINGS of happiness = ACHIEVEMENT of happiness -- and this paraphrase was closest to (C) and not (B).

(B) is wrong because even if Thing A makes someone happy at one moment and not the next, this doesn't preclude them from ACHIEVING happiness at that one particular time. Thing A could be an achievement (aka their potential reached).

Anyone feel free to correct me.

[Emmeline Ndongue]

Regarding B:
It says Deidre fails to take into account (.....), so B thinks that (....) should be taken into account. So if (.....) weren't taken into account, you can still achieve happiness according to both the philosophers and Deidre. In other words, taking into account (....) doesn't make any difference to the premises and the argument, thus B is incorrect.

Is this thought process correct? I feel like sometimes you might not be able to get the flaw immediately and have to go to the answer choices. And for flaw questions' "It fails to (...)", can I just think of whether without (...) the argument can still hold or the conclusion can still be reached to decide if the answer choice is correct?

Regarding D:
It says Deidre presumes happiness is the goal of life. First of all, the stimulus never mentioned the goal of "life", instead it only ever said the goal of "everyone". (is this enough to eliminate this?) Second, if Deidre did presumed this, it doesn't stop Deidre from reaching her conclusion (which is flawed btw) nor does it harm the premise regarding what many philosophers claimed.

So, are both elements I mentioned in the "Second" point each able to eliminate this answer choice? or only one of them, or not even one of them? Is this the right way to deal with flaw questions' "presume......" answer choices?