#21- Genuine happiness consists not in pleasurable feelings

[165OrBust]

I think I’m in the right forum - please correct me if not!

I had difficulty with this question because I identified the question stem as a Necessary Assumption so immediately started thinking of possible Supporter or Defender statements and (in hindsight - erroneously) thought that the Mechanistic Approach from the Justify (Sufficient Assumption) question type would lead me to the wrong answer.

Much overthinking occurred and absolutely no hilarity ensued. I chose E.

After reviewing the LR Bible, I think that the Mechanistic Approach “could” actually be used to link new elements in a Necessary Assumption - Supporter question.

Is this correct?

Thanks,
Liz

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi 165OrBust,

You are right that in a supporter assumption, you need to bridge a gap in the argument, just like you would in Justify the Conclusion question. However, since you can't tell from the question stem if it will be a defender or supporter assumption, it's a risky move to try the mechanistic approach. It also could still lead you to an incorrect answer choice.

Additionally, the mechanistic approach won't always lead to a correct answer in assumption questions. For example, in this particular question, answer choice (E) also links an idea from the conclusion that's not mentioned above (material well-being) to the idea from the premise (the sense of approval). However the answer choice is not correct because it doesn't link what we need it to link. It doesn't contain a necessary step for the argument.

In general, it's best to use the techniques specific for each question type only for that question type.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[165OrBust]

Thank you Rachael, that really helps a lot.

Don’t discard an answer if it uses the mechanistic approach, but proceed with caution!

Best,
Liz

[Pragmatism]

I'm still very confused about this question... I chose E and I'm not seeining the "gap" and how it is being connected. I feel like when there are many sentences and the main premise that we have to work with and the conclusion is separated by another irrelevant premise I get super confused when it comes to necessary assumption questions. Could someone please break this down for me in detail? I feel like for these questions I go with my intuition and haven't seen myself get them right with consistency under timed conditions. I understand the basic principle behind necessary conditions but get mixed up with words and then answer choices confuse the heck out of me!!

Please please help!!

Being very analytical and trying to weed out superfluous statements from the crux of an argument under timed constraints is my Achilles heel. I would like to express the same concern akanshlsat presented.

Also, I had an issue with interpreting genuine happiness (GH) and happy life (HL) to be synomous. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the interchangability of GH and HL that illustrates the gap that needs to be bridged. I interpretted genuine happiness as meaning obtaining intrinsic fulfillment which, to me, seemed to be more restricted in temporality than a happy life. Thus, finding it hard to connect to the bugger picture.

Any advice would be helpful.

[Charlie Melman]

Pragmatism,

I remember this question from my own LSAT prep -- it's a tough one.

Your question is great because it gets at the heart of this problem. Based on what we see in the stimulus, genuine happiness and a happy life are not the same, and bridging the gap between the two is what solves the problem. And they're not the same for the exact reason you give: genuine happiness can exist for one small period in someone's life, while "the happy life" is a general description of one's entire life. In other words, and as you say, genuine happiness is more temporally restricted.

Answer choice (B) allows us to see this difference. Approving of your own character and projects is the stuff that makes up genuine happiness. So if you approve of your own character and projects, you'll have genuine happiness. And, per answer choice (B), approving of your own character and projects will also give you a morally virtuous life. Since a morally virtuous life = a happy life (per the stimulus), we now know that approving of your own character and projects leads both to genuine happiness and "the happy life." The gap is bridged.

Hope this helps!

[Pragmatism]

THANK YOU! Phew! That stimulus was a real head scratcher.

[tizwvu34]

Would the answer also of been correctly stated if it said "People who lead morally virtuous lives tend to approve of their own character and projects"? This statement is not conditional because of the words "tends to" so this shouldn't be a mistaken reversal?

I struggle with harder assumption/justify questions where I see the parts that need to link, but both the correct answer and its mistaken reversal are present.

[James Finch]

Hi Tizvwu,

No, because we need "morally virtuous life" to be a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, as it is the end goal we're trying to get to. Using the Assumption Negation test can clarify the difference:

Answer choice (B):

People who approve of their own character and projects do not tend to lead virtuous lives

The happy life does not tend to be the morally virtuous life

Versus your hypothetical:

People who lead morally virtuous lives do not tend to approve of their own character and projects

The happy life does not tend to be the morally virtuous life

Answer choice (B) combines perfectly with the premise given in the first sentence to create the correct conditional relationship, while the hypothetical you gave is the wrong direction to tell us anything.

Hope this clears things up!

[supjeremyklein]

not an LSAT expert, but wanted to share my thoughts on this question - this was an interesting stimulus!

it's categorical syllogism, and i'm thinking there's two types of answers depending on how you look at the conclusion

for instance, if i interpret the syllogism as negative:
1) the happy life is not in pleasurable feelings
2) therefore, the happy life is not a life of material well-being
the assumption:
a) a life in not pleasurable feelings is not a life of material well-being

but if i interpret the syllogism as affirmative:
1) the happy life is in one's sense of approval
2) therefore, the happy life is a morally virtuous one
the assumption:
a) a life of one's sense of approval is a life morally virtuous

would love to hear thoughts on this!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jeremy,

Solid analysis, and my comment would be, "Why not both?" (I REALLY wanted to use that meme gif, but it just wouldn't load as an active item here, ugh!).

The argument is making both positive and negative assertions (in both the premise and the conclusion), so each of the syllogisms you note is technically a part of the argument. The connection you note in the "negative syllogism" assumption is, I think, fairly read as an assumption, but it's not an answer choice. So we have to look to the "positive syllogism" assumption for our answer. The connection you notice in that syllogism between "self-approval" and a "morally virtuous life" is present in answer choice B, so we're home free!

Keep up the great work!

Jeremy