#23 - Essayist: It is much less difficult to live an

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, JSLSAT, good question. To address your last question first, the distinction between "having" and "choosing" does not significantly alter whether this answer choice is more or less apt to strengthen the essayist's argument.

With respect to this question (and all Strengthen questions) it is important to note that the credited response will strengthen/improve the validity of the conclusion by addressing a logical flaw/assumption/gap in the argument. In this argument, the logical gap is between the conclusion, "no one should be denied the freedom to choose the people with whom he or she will associate" and the premise "it is much less difficult to live an enjoyable life if one is able to make lifestyle choices that accord with one's personal beliefs etc."

Ask yourself, "why do we care that someone should or shouldn't be able to choose her friends/associates?"

The answer is: "because the author thinks everyone should be able to live an enjoyable life"

As Dave noted, (D) adds stipulations that restrict this general conclusion about everyone to a subset of people, the people "whose enjoyment of life depends, at least in part, on friends and associates who share many of the same personal beliefs."

Further, the second part of answer choice (D) adds further restrictions about "deliberately preventing" this group of people "from having such friends and associates."

You might think to yourself, "Sure, why not, certainly all purple moon cows should be able to chill with their homeys, but does this statement really do a whole lot to make my overall conclusion better?" The answer is no. The scope of this answer choice is too narrow and it does little to address the overarching flaw in the argument.

Besides, since we are looking for what "most helps to justify" the argument, it's a hands-down win for answer choice C.

[JSLSAT]

Apologies for the delay in telling you, but your answer was very helpful. Thank you!

[ronibass]

I was just wondering how you were able to prephrase "the principle that will strengthen this conclusion will likely assert that we cannot stop people from doing things that will make life less difficult to enjoy." based on the conditional statements in the stimulus. I chose E and if I was able to form this prephrase I think I would have got the answer right.

[James Finch]

Hi Roni,

There are two things that allow for the optimal Prephrase of "If make life less difficult to enjoy, then should not deny freedom:" first, the conclusion is trying to prove that we shouldn't deny a freedom, which means this will need to be our necessary condition. This alone eliminates all but (C), as it is the only one that fits this scope ((D) comes close, but just changes it enough by adding "deliberately" to make it incorrect.) The other issue is that we need to validate that this fits the previous conditional logic in the stimulus, which has a necessary condition of "makes life less difficult to enjoy." So we're going to want to tie the two conditions together by making the following linkage:

Can Make Life Less Difficult to EnjoyThing Should Not DenyThing

With "Thing" being the sufficient condition for potentially making life less difficult to enjoy and also what the conclusion is saying should not be denied.

This works because the thing in question (freedom of association) can make life less difficult to enjoy, according to the premises, so it shouldn't be denied (according to the conclusion).

Hope this clears things up!