#17 - One should never sacrifice one’s health in order to

[deck1134]

I PowerScore Staff,

I am struggling to understand how you got from the conditional statement in the last part of the sentence (which I diagrammed as Happiness Health) to your clarified conditional. Any tips?

Thanks

[Margo]

Hi Powerscore,

This question was difficult for me as well. I understand why (A) is correct after reading the explanation, but I have trouble ruling out D and E.

For D: Isn't being wealthy conducive (in some circumstances) to unhappiness? I thought that according to the stimulus, if you sacrifice your health in order to become wealthy, then you are not able to obtain happiness.

For E: Isn't health more important to obtaining happiness than wealth is, according to the stimulus? Since the stimulus states that you need health in order to be able to obtain happiness, but if you are wealthy and not healthy, you cannot obtain happiness.

Thanks

[Alex Bodaken]

deck1134,

I would refer you to James' diagram, but simply note that what you diagrammed (Happiness Health) is the contrapositive of James' diagram (Health Happiness), which he then shows how to connect with the answer choice to make a logical conclusion. Please let us know if you need more help with this one.

Margo,

The issue with both (D) and (E) is that while they both may be true based on the stimulus, neither needs to be assumed for the stimulus to be true - only answer choice (A) is needed to make the argument follow logically. That distinction is what makes (A) the credited answer choice here.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[cxmss170]

I have a question on "in order to" since it's a sufficient indicator, should diagram for the sentence: "one should never sacrifice one's health in order to acquire money” be like: AM--> NOT sacrifice health?

why it's not health --> not AM?

Thanks

[James Finch]

Hi CX,

I'm confused as you seem to be diagramming the conditional conclusion and its contrapositive correctly. As you seem to be implying, it can be easier at times to work with a contrapositive than with the given conditional, as it may be here. I can refer you back to my earlier post:

"...The stimulus gives us that we should never sacrifice health to acquire money
(Health AM, contrapositive AM Health),
because without health, happiness is not obtainable
(Health HO, contrapositive HO Health.
This means we have to link either
HO AM,
or the contrapositive
AM HO,
as answer choice (A) is written.

Hope this clears things up!

[ieric01]

Hey guys,

I solved this Q's using the “Taking for granted” and “Failing to consider” approach. Love if you can take a look at my reasoning. Thanks!

Here’s what I got:

==========================================================================================

The author argues you should never sacrifice your health for money.

Why?

Because without health, you can’t have happiness.

So what’s the problem?

Well, at first, it sounds like common sense, right? We all want happiness! And we should never sacrifice our health for money, right? But that’s where we lost sight of the task. We’re projecting our own beliefs onto this problem instead of eliminating the glaring holes in its reasoning structure.

So to overcome this mental challenge, I asked myself “What is the author taking for granted?” The answer that came to mind was “The author is taking for granted that money is an obstacle to happiness.” What if it’s not? What if acquiring money can bring happiness? What if paying off their student or buying their parents a new home in a better, safer neighborhood, will make someone happy? Then acquiring money wouldn't be an obstacle to happiness but it would be the path to happiness.

Then I used the “Failing to consider” approach and I thought “What if the author is failing to consider that some people might believe money is worth getting even if they’re horribly unhappy?”

These are possible objections. The glaring holes in the argument.

Now, to make this argument rock-tight, we have to eliminate these possibilities. And we do that by plugging in “You should only acquire money if you can also be happy” into the argument.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ieric,

That sounds like a pretty rock solid approach to me, so I don't have any objections to it at all!

From a more simplified perspective, notice how the conclusion incorporates a "should" statement (about how people are to behave). Without a "should" type rule incorporated into the premises, I can't be completely confident of that conclusion. So that narrows my field of vision to answers A and C.

Notice also that the conclusion refers to the acquisition of money, whereas the premise does not. I need to justify that idea in the conclusion as well! So, with only answers A and C to choose from, I have to take A (C doesn't refer to money at all!).

It really is that easy--and that's why I LOVE Justify questions. Sad that there aren't more of those!

Anyway, keep up the fantastic work!

Jeremy

[Owl224]

When I went through this question I eliminated D and E first off because I saw that it assumed "wealth" == "acquiring money." I'm wondering if this first step in my process of elimination is appropriate in this context? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not entirely on board with that approach here, Owl224. It's not much of a leap to connect those two ideas, and a good answer might have been along the lines of "happiness is more important than wealth." Or, to reword answer A, "Wealth should be accumulated only if its acquisition will not make happiness unobtainable." While those might not be ideal answers, they could still end up being the best answer, and negating either of them does seem to do a lot of damage to the argument (happiness is not more important than wealth; wealth should be accumulated even if its acquisition will make happiness unobtainable).

I think a better approach here is to recognize that the author argues against sacrificing health to acquire money because of its impact on happiness, and prephrase that the author assumes happiness is the more important goal. Look for the answer that establishes happiness as a priority over money, and you have your winner! Answers D and E are out not because they switch the terms from "money" to "wealth," but because they don't have anything to do with setting those priorities.