LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: One should never sacrifice one’s health in order to…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: You shouldn’t give up health for money.
REASONING: Without health, you can’t have happiness.
ANALYSIS: This argument appeals to our common sense. Everyone wants happiness, so this argument seems self-evident. But this is the LSAT, and you can’t make assumptions like that. Common sense can let you make predictions, but you can’t use it to prove an argument correct if the question says the argument is not correct.
Maybe wealth is worth having even if you’re horribly unhappy. To prove the argument correct you must eliminate this possibility and say that money is only worth having if you can also be happy.
___________
- CORRECT. If this is true, then you shouldn’t sacrifice your health for money.
- This doesn’t help the argument. If this is true then maybe you can be happy with just money.
- This weakens the argument. We’re trying to prove that we shouldn’t sacrifice health. This shows that health isn’t valuable in itself.
- The argument is only talking about the kind of wealth that destroys happiness. So we already know this answer is true – it can’t prove the argument.
- This doesn’t tell us to seek health instead of wealth. We’re not looking for something that tells us what is likely to lead to happiness. We need an answer that tells us never to seek wealth if it makes us unhappy.
Did you choose this because you thought it was true? That’s a common pattern in trap answers. We’re trying to prove the conclusion true, not pick something that seems true.
Recap: The question begins with “One should never sacrifice one’s health”. It is a question. To practice more questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
I tried to answer this using conditional reasoning and came to the same answer but I am unsure if I have diagrammed it correctly. (I used ~ to represent negations)
Conclusion: ~Happy —> Money
Premise: ~Health —->~ Happy
And then answer choice A would look like this: Money —-> Happy
Which would connect the premises to the conclusion (by use of the contrapositive of choice A):
~Happy —> ~Money —> Health
Is this logically sound?
Since the setup of the stimulus is “Conclusion for (for is a premise indicator) Premise”, here’s what the reasoning should look like:
Premise: Happiness –> Health
Conclusion: Acquire Money –> ~ Sacrifice Health
(~Sacrifice Health = Stay Healthy) So, you can actually diagram the conclusion as: Acquire Money –> Health
So we have:
Premise: Happiness –> Health
Conclusion: Acquire Money –> Health
All we need is a bridge between the premise and the conclusion. If we add Acquire Money –> Happiness, then we have our bridge. Acquire Money –> Happiness –> Health
Acquire Money –> Happiness looks like (A). Acquire Money only if you still have happiness (“will not make happiness unobtainable” is a double negative).