Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 1 · Question 19

Incorrect. First, this answer is way too strong in calling a view "incoherent"—the Essayist understands what the Philosophers are saying. She believes, however, that their premises lead to the opposite conclusion. That's a bad argument, not an incoherent one.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of how people value happiness—the Essayist discusses the inherent value of it, not the subjective value.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Completion

Stimulus Summary:
Main Point - Intrinsically valuable → Happiness

Some philosophers: People don't approve of bad people being happy, so we must value something other than happiness

Essayist rebuttal: Deserved happiness is based on how happy they make others, so __________.

Answer Anticipation:
These abstract philosophical arguments can be the worst, so let's break it down piece by piece!

At its heart, the argument we're trying to complete here is a rebuttal, with the Philosophers making an argument, and the Essayist rebutting it. However, that rebuttal is part of an intermediate argument that's meant to support the main point that the Essayist opens with—that only happiness is intrinsically valuable. As such, we need to keep that point in mind as we anticipate a conclusion to the rebuttal—how does this go to show that nothing other than happiness is intrinsically valuable?

The Philosophers bring up a situation where they say that something other than happiness is intrinsically valued—the disapproval of bad people being happy. Whatever leads to that disapproval, they contend, must also have intrinsic value.

The Essayist is rebutting this, and there are two ways that she could go about doing so: either by showing that the disapproval stems from happiness; or that it doesn't highlight something that has intrinsic value. Here, she points out that "deserved" happiness is determined by happiness—in other words, the "other thing" that Philosophers believe has value is also happiness. Since the Essayist points out that happiness is the relevant valuable factor here, we should look for an answer that hits that point home—something to the effect of whether someone deserves happiness is determined by happiness.

Answer Explanation:
This answer sums up the Essayist's view of the opposing point. They bring up a situation where something other than happiness appears to be valuable, but the Essayist shows that this other thing is, itself, happiness, as this answer states.

Key Takeaway:
When the argument structure and content are both complex, fall back on the common structures and patterns to help you through it. Here, at its heart, the argument was a rebuttal. Knowing what we know about rebuttals helped us to determine what the author's conclusion was.

Incorrect. First, there's nothing in the stimulus that discusses how to "assure[]" happiness. Second, the argument discusses bringing happiness to others, not bringing happiness to those who deserve it.

Incorrect. There's no indication that a bad person can't bring happiness to others, so this answer is incorrect.