#26 - A member of the British Parliament is reputed to have

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the author makes a leap in logic on behalf of the British Parliamentarian: the premise is that social reform should increase the sum total of happiness. From this basic premise, the author draws a broad (and rather questionable) conclusion that making someone happy is enough to make for a good reform. We should note this leap is as a prephrased answer to this weaken question.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is likely true, but it does not play into the argumentation of the stimulus, so it is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is a cleverly worded wrong answer, but it only says that the happiness of others is not increased—this could allow for an increase to the sum total, so this does not weaken the argument and is thus incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice strengthens the argument, because if the only effects were positive, then this would translate into an increase in the sum total of happiness.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This answer deals directly with the prephrased concepts discussed above—the sum total might decrease despite the increased happiness of "some."

Answer choice (E): The argument doesn't deal with widespread support, so this answer choice is incorrect.

[netherlands]

Hi there PS,

Sorry about all these questions! But for some reason I'm getting thrown off a lot by weakening questions.

For this one, I kind of felt like I didn't know where to start. Some of it felt like it was conditional - but then I looked at your online explanation and you didn't seem to use conditional .

Still I saw a bit of a general form :

Good Social Reform Increase Sum Total
and then the conclusion/claim that the author makes
My Reform Makes Constituents Happy It is a Good Social Reform

I chose D because it looked like the author was trying to state that "Making constituents happy" was synonymous with "increasing sum total".

But I was also thrown off by the line "So, any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose." I didn't understand what role this line played and that's where I ended up confused. Is this the "leap of logic" you refer to in the explanation... It seems like he took a general principle and then changed it / re-interpreted it to make it fit his upcoming claim.

(Honestly - and looking back - I feel like his argument could have been weakened in three different ways-
1) His assumption is a Mistaken Reversal
2) The answer choice - assuming Happy Constituents is synonymous with sum total
3) Reinterpreting the principle given at the beginning.)

[Steve Stein]

Hi Netherlands,

One problem is that not everything that can be diagrammed necessarily should be diagrammed. The leap that the Parliamentarian makes in this case is a massive one:

The first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness. So, any reform that makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. My proposal makes some people happy, so it's good.

Making somebody happy, or making some small group of people happy, is not a sure way to increase the sum total of human happiness! It might not work if others are made unhappy in the bargain. This is what is provided by correct answer choice D.

I hope that's helpful--let me know, and also let me know if there were any incorrect answer choices that you found particularly appealing--thanks!

~Steve

[netherlands]

B and D for the most part were the ones I chose between, mainly because A and E seemed completely irrelevant. I guess for C - this still could show an increase in the Sum Total.

After looking at the online explanation I could see how B could support the argument - Making a few more happy could increase the sum total.

But for D I can see there was the trade-off between making some happy but leaving others unhappy.

[Steve Stein]

Hi Netherlands,

Thanks for your response. I thought B was a particularly clever answer choice, because, as you said, not increasing the happiness of most people still allows for an increase to the sum total.

~Steve

[netherlands]

Ok, also I see what I should be recognizing in this construct - which will definitely help me stop diagramming things.

If ... then clauses,compared with Since... then clauses. In all of these they're basically just assuming synonymity between the clauses.

Don't know why this took me so long to easily recognize but thanks for helping me see that! Probably wouldn't have made myself see that without you pointing out that I should be able to do it without diagraming it!

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I looked at the explanations online however I still had a question. I do not see how the author made a leap in logic, since when we can have all to mean some, if all people will be happy that is the premise than we can conclude that some people will be happy because of the reform?

Also, why answer choice B is wrong and D is right?

Thanks
Ellen

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Ellen, thanks for the question. For this stimulus, pay close attention to the premise about the purpose of social reform - "to increase the sum total of human happiness." That is, good social reform results in greater OVERALL happiness, and not just making some people happy.

D points out the flaw here - the Member of Parliament has assumed that making his constituents happy will achieve that goal of increasing overall happiness. What if it doesn't? What if we could measure happiness in units like grams - if the reform gave his constituents 100 grams of happiness, and took away 100 or more grams of happiness from others, then the sum total of happiness would not be increased, right?

B goes partway there, but not quite far enough. B could mean that some people get happier (say, 100 grams again) and others merely stay the same as they were (no loss or gain of happiness grams). Even if that were true, the sum total of happiness would increase, and therefore the argument would not be weakened. D goes more to the point by directly addressing the issue of the total amount of happiness.

Hope that helped!

[FIDELIO]

PrepTest 22 June 1997 Section #4 Question #26

huh? are you serious? B is incorrect? LSAT is going to sit around saying D is the correct answer when it's VAGUE and doesn't mention the word REFORM anywhere.

The premise mentions happiness in terms of "SOCIAL REFORM" NOT happiness in gambling your life away, being able to chug a 12 pack in 10 minutes or some stung out utilitarian definition. Argument specific happiness in terms of SOCIAL REFORM.

this problem is so farkin messed up it's laughable. i come up with the correct prephrase and this is how you treat me?

B says MOST that means MAJORITY; and for the MAJORITY there would be NO increase in happiness. THEREFORE the sum total would NOT be HAPPY.

FEW is LESS than the MAJORITY. If there are FEWER people injected with HAPPINESS than those in the MAJORITY then the "sum total" is NOT HAPPINESS.

What a BUNCH of CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nicholas Bruno]

Hi!

I understand how it can be frustrating when you don't understand where the test makers are coming from! But don't get too frustrated or upset by it: just work through and try to get in the test maker's heads.

So on this question, the first step is to isolate the conclusion that this particular reform is a good social reform.

The premises:
"Any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose" (the purpose being to increase the *sum total* of human happiness).
This reform makes some people happy

Right away, you should see the weakness: the premise never again mentions the *sum total* of human happiness. The reform could make the constituents happy (let's say, hypothetically, that is 100 people) but the rest of the country (let's say, hypothetically, 1000 people) unhappy. The sum total of human happiness has decreased and thus, according to premise #1, would not be a good social reform.

D points out this weakness: Increasing some people’s happiness (namely the constituents) might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others are made unhappy.

B is incorrect: we do not need to worry about increasing *everyone's* happiness. Only some people's. Thus, the fact that the reform does not "increase the happiness of most other people" is irrelevant to the conclusion.

I hope that helps! Hang in there!