#17 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=13649)

The correct answer choice is (A)

This question asks for the second author’s likely reaction to the “phenomenon of rivalry” explanation of the study; the author disagrees with this construction, saying that the drive for relative prosperity is based not on a need to one-up our neighbors, but on a desire to bring value to society (…with personal happiness, notes the author, as a bonus).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the second author would disagree with the rivalry interpretation, saying that the desire for more is based on the intention to bring benefit to society.

Answer choice (B): The rivalry theory is certainly not flattering, so this choice should be quickly ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (C): The author would disagree with this interpretation, and would not assert that the evidence is ambiguous. As such, this cannot be the right answer choice.

Answer choice (D): The author of passage B would agree with the first part of this choice but disagree with the second part; the rivalry explanation is rather unflattering, but the author would not agree that it is more or less valid.

Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer, because the author of the second passage sees the rivalry explanation as neither accurate nor strongly supported by the evidence.

[bli2016]

Hi,

I chose B and I still do not understand why it is wrong. I was referencing line 48-50 "This theory may sound good... but it is not the explanation best supported by the evidence" when trying to answer this question, and perhaps I was looking at the wrong place.

Could someone explain why A is right and B is wrong? I also do not understand why the author of passage B would regard the existence of the phenomenon of rivalry "ungenerous in its view of human nature".

Thank you

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi bli2016,

You're definitely looking at the right lines, but I think you might be misinterpreting what the word "good" means there. Here, "it might sound good" means "it might sound convincing" or "plausible," NOT "it might sound favorable." Passage B is saying that the explanation from Passage A might seem to make sense, but it actually is missing the true explanation. That lines up with the idea from answer A that it is "mistaken." As for the idea that it is an ungenerous interpretation, look to lines 60-65; Passage A sees it as an "ignoble tendency," but Passage B sees it as more worthwhile.

[T.B.Justin]

Hey,

In my opinion, it appears that, it is more or less true that while the author of passage B has a different more positive perspective on the "rivalry" phenomenon and that the author of passage A has a more negative perspective of, that both views are similar, just their ways for thinking positively/negatively or as described in one of the answer choices "ungenerous" view of human nature that is apparent of the author in passage B, as he cited for evidence the Solnick and Hemenway study.

Whether its to one-up-the neighbors or create value for oneself, if someone one ups their neighbors, for example, by installing a larger in ground pool than the neighbor has, that is serving both purposes of creating value for oneself and one-upping-the neighbors.

So, is this just about having good intentions versus no or not good intentions?

Thanks!

[Jay Donnell]

Hey T.B.!

Let's deconstruct the reasoning behind both parts of the correct answer of A, the "ungenerous in its view of human nature and mistaken in its interpretation of the evidence."

The latter half is likely easier to justify, as the author of passage B refers to the 'rivalry' conclusion as "not the explanation best supported by the evidence." (line 50).

For the first portion of the answer, though ungenerous is certainly an odd term, the Solnick and Hemenway study seems to provide data which the authors interpret with a slightly different tone. The author of passage A lists rivalry as one of two functions that drive up the 'norm' to which people compare their income, and therefore their happiness. That implies that rivalry is in fact a motivational factor in this phenomenon, and though it is subtle, the examples of the study seem to suggest that a person's relative position to that of their 'reference group' plays a big role in their happiness, perhaps more so than the actual level (norm) that describes their income and standard of living.

The author of passage B takes a more flattering view toward those who are concerned with the relative prosperity compared to others. It seems far less one-upmanship than a genuine pride in that their wealth/material goods are a sign that their prosperity comes from the value they have contributed to society. The author uses the reference to 'ignoble tendencies' in line 62 as a contrast to imply that seeking prosperity may be in fact a NOBLE tendency, as that prosperity implies value created to society, and What scholars often portray as an ignoble tendency—wanting to have more than others— is really evidence of a desire to create value, and "wanting to create value benefits society."

In short, it does seem to boil down to the intentions behind actions, and the author of B has a more positive view of the intentions behind seeking prosperity than does the author of passage A.

Hope that helps!

[Henry Z]

Why is (C) wrong?

I think it is supported by lines 48-50 ("This theory may sound good and is commonly heard, but it is not the explanation best supported by the evidence.") I understand (C)'s "plausible" as "sound good", and "ambiguous" as the data are open to interpretation. Solnick and Hemenway's explanation is one of them, and the author only says it is not "best supported by the evidence"--it may be distorted or incomplete, but not necessarily wrong.

I feel (A) is too strong in both "ungenerous" and "mistaken". Especially the former word. I know "oneupmanship" and "primeval" are not the most flattering words but when my real world reading experience comes in (think about The Economist), I feel it can easily be seen as tongue-in-cheek, instead of taking issue with the theory. The attitude hints are so weak that I felt reluctant to choose (A) with such an explicit attitude.

[Robert Carroll]

Henry Z,

Answer choice (C) is wrong solely because of the second half of it. The evidence is not described as ambiguous. The inferences made from the evidence by some people are wrong. You have to disaggregate the evidence and the inferences here. When the author of passage B talks about the evidence, the author says things like the following: "Rather, the data show that...", "but this is not the explanation best supported by the evidence". The author describes the data as showing something - there's nothing apparent about that, nothing like "seems to show" that would demonstrate that the author thinks the evidence itself is ambiguous. Every time the author describes the evidence, the author describes it as properly leading to one conclusion. The author thinks other people have made mistakes, but that the evidence is not at fault for those mistakes.

Answer choice (A) is great - "ungenerous" is exactly right. The author of passage B describes the erroneous inference from the Solnick and Hemenway study as portraying humans as having an "ignoble" tendency. The author's inference from the study is also directly opposed to the inferences of others, so "mistaken" is exactly right as well.

Robert Carroll