#14 - Human beings can live happily only in a society where

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point—FIB, SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

The question here asks you to fill in the blank in the final sentence of the stimulus. The sentence begins with the phrase, “It is obvious then that...” This phrase indicates that the final sentence should be a logically valid conclusion.

There are two key facts provided in the premises here. On the one hand, humans need love and friendship to be the primary motives for action in order to be happy:

• Premise: Happiness Love and friendship

Alas, economic needs do not require love and friendship to be the primary motives:

• Premise: Economic needs Love and friendship

The stimulus then provides an example of a society where only economic utility (not love and friendship) motivates action, showing that economic needs can be satisfied without love and friendship. Without love and friendship as the primary motives for actions, however, human beings cannot live happily. Therefore, satisfying economic needs does not require humans to live happily, i.e. we can satisfy our economic needs without ever being happy:

• Conclusion: Economic needs Happiness

This prephrase immediately reveals answer choice (D) to be correct.

Answer Choice (A): The first sentence says that humans need love and friendship to be the primary motives for action in order to be happy. But love and friendship do not necessarily have to be the only motives for action in order for humans to be happy. It is therefore possible for humans to live happily even if economic utility is one motive for action.

Answer Choice (B): There is nothing in the stimulus that shows happiness requires anything other than love and friendship as the primary motives for action. Economic needs are not necessary to achieve happiness.

Answer Choice (C): The stimulus shows that economic needs can be satisfied without love and friendship as the primary motives for action. We also know, through the merchant society example, that societies can meet their economic needs with economic utility as the sole motivator. However, we have no restrictions on other possible means of satisfying economic needs. It is therefore possible that economic needs could be met through interactions with family and friends.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Since economic needs can be satisfied with only economic utility as the motivator of actions, then economic needs do not require love and friendship to be the primary motivators of action. If love and friendship are not the primary motivators of action, then humans cannot live happily in that society. Therefore, humans can satisfy their economic needs without obtaining happiness.

Answer Choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer. This answer choice says that humans need happiness to satisfy their economic needs when the stimulus shows that humans actually do not need happiness in order to satisfy their economic needs.

[melissa27]

Can you please explain the method of reasoning used to answer this question. I marked the correct answer but wanted to make sure I was correctly diagramming the statements.

What I have is :

Happy --> Love and Friends primary motive

Not Love and Not Friends --> Eco needs satisfied

My thought process behind choosing D is that Eco Needs was never tied back to Happiness therefore someone could satisfy those needs without obtaining happiness since happiness can only be obtained by love and friendship.

[Steve Stein]

Hey Melissa,

Thanks for your response. I think you've got the basics on that one. Let's simplify and try to prephrase the answer that will go into the blank:

Humans can be happy only when love and friendship are the motivation.
Without love and friendship as motivation, humans can't be happy.

Economic needs can be met without love and friendship--but as we know, under such conditions, humans can't be happy.

...It is obvious then, that _____________.

My prephrase would be that economic needs can be met without humans being happy. This is provided by answer correct answer choice D.

Please let me know whether this clears that one up--thanks!

~Steve

[melissa27]

Thanks for the explanation, it definitely makes sense now.

[theamazingrace]

Hi, is it fair to make this chain:

Economic needs ~love or ~friendship ~happiness

So, from this you know the economic needs ~ happiness

Thank you in advance.

[Adam Tyson]

That approach would be creating a conditional rule where none exists, theamazingrace. The stimulus does not say that satisfying economic needs REQUIRES that you not have love and friendship. It says that those things are not necessary; you can satisfy those needs whether you have love and friendship or not. That's not so much a conditional claim but a denial of a conditional relationship, saying that something is not necessary.

The better approach is to realize that if satisfying economic needs CAN occur without those things, things which are necessary for happiness, then those economic needs CAN be satisfied without the sufficient condition, Happiness. That's the prephrase that will get you to answer D. Not that satisfying those needs prevents or precludes happiness, but that satisfying them does not require happiness. Happiness is optional.

[Desperatenconfused]

I actually solved this problem in a different way, but I'm unsure if this way is incorrect...

Because H --> L + F, and it said economic needs can be satisfied in the absence of "this" condition, I thought that economic needs was the necessary condition (since it doesn't need a sufficient condition to happen), and I knew love+friendship was not primary motives for actions, I got ~H --> economic needs (EN), since without love and friendship, happiness can't exist, and EN being the necessary condition.

When I saw answer choice D, I thought conditionals with the term 'without', I have to negate the sufficient, so I got
~EN --> H, which is the contrapositive of my thinking above.

Alls to say is that I did struggle with this question, and it feels like I really only understood half of the stimulus, and I got a lucky break of using an incorrect method to get the correct answer.

[Robert Carroll]

Desperatenconfused,

The statement about economic needs isn't a conditional. It's not a sufficient or a necessary condition at all. It can exist in certain circumstances. A conditional relationship says what must happen, not what could happen. You can just say that economic needs can be satisfied without love and without friendship, so economic needs can be satisfied without the necessary conditions for happiness. Thus, economic needs can be satisfied without happiness.

Not every statement here is a conditional.

Hope that helps!

Robert Carroll