Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 1 · Question 22

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with a Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
We rarely find the most morally virtuous historical figures to be the most engaging. Instead, we find brave and creative historical figures engaging. So, moral virtue must not be one of the things we admire most, because the people whose lives we wish to live are those whose characteristics we most admire.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that:
   1. Strengthens the conclusion of the argument, and
   2. Is necessary for the conclusion of the argument
      1. Can use "negation test" to double-check: if this answer choice isn't true, does the conclusion become untrue as well? If so, it's necessary for the conclusion of the argument, and it is the correct answer

Answer Anticipation:
On Strengthen with a Necessary Premise questions, our job is to find the answer choice that: (a) strengthens the conclusion of the argument and (b) must be true to draw the conclusion. Finding an answer choice that matches both criteria is, at first, very challenging for many test-takers.

But after completing many of these questions, observant LSATers start to see a pattern. In almost all Strengthen with a Necessary Premise questions, there's a "gap" in the argument. This gap is most commonly created between the premise and the conclusion (which we can spot by noticing any "new," important ideas introduced in the argument's conclusion). But sometimes the gap is between more than one premise, too. And occasionally, diagramming can help us see this "gap." Finding the gap, wherever it is located, is crucial, as the correct answer will address the gap, often simply linking the two concepts. After all, bridging the gap — at least partially — will strengthen the argument, and showing that the gap is fixable is necessary to form a valid argument.

This conclusion discusses the characteristics we admire most and moral virtue — neither of these terms are "new." So, the gap in the argument probably occurs between the premises. We'll look to the premises about the characteristics we admire most and moral virtue to find the gap. The final premise, which follow "since," is about the characteristics we admire most. It says that the people whose characteristics we admire most are those with the lives we'd most like to live. The first premise is about moral virtue. It says the figures we find most engaging are not the most morally virtuous people. So there's a gap between wanting to live someone's life and finding that person the most engaging.

We'll need to find the answer choice that bridges that gap, perhaps by saying the people we find most engaging have the lives we most like to live. Adding that to this argument would help strengthen it. We'd know the people with the characteristics we admire most have the lives we'd like to lead, which would mean we find them the most engaging, which would mean they're probably not morally virtuous. That would help us conclude that the characteristic we admire most is not moral virtue.

Finally, we can double-check answer choices with the negation test if we need to. To apply the negation test, we can simply ask, "If this answer choice weren't true, does the conclusion become untrue as well?" If so, that answer choice is necessary for the argument's conclusion. If the conclusion could still be true, then that answer choice is wrong.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This bridges the gap in the premises, equating "most engaging" to "lives we would most want to live." (Which is patently silly — many people might find stories of ratcatchers during the Black Plague engaging, but few would want to live that life themselves. No matter, it still checks out logically.) As discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, this would help us conclude that we don't admire moral virtue the most.

Is it necessary, however? We can use the negation test to find out. Suppose that the historical figures we find most engaging aren't those with the lives we'd most like to live. That would mean the people with the lives we'd like to live the most are not those unvirtuous historical figures we find engaging. That would allow for the possibility that we'd like to live the lives of morally virtuous people, which would mean we'd admire moral virtue the most. In other words, falsifying this answer choice wrecks the argument, so this is a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
Ay-ay-ay, this is a rough question. With a lot of time to unpack it, it's possible to reason through the passage, identify all the argument's faults, and assess each answer carefully, applying the negation test to each. However, on a timed test, you almost certainly do not have the time to do this.

So what can you do in the context of a timed exam? Go back to the fundamentals of solving a Strengthen with a Necessary Premise question. Look for new ideas in the conclusion. If there are new ideas in the conclusion, pick an answer choice that links that new idea to a premise. If there are no new ideas, assume the gap is between the premises, and pick the answer choice that connects two premises. If you applied that speed-strategy here, you would have to assume the gap was between two premises, and that would lead to you select (A) — the only answer choice that connects two premises. (All other answer choices bring up new ideas, like the "difficulty" of being virtuous in (B), how commonplace virtue is in (C), "knowing" about a historical figures in (D), and finding something "least engaging" in (E).) Maybe you wouldn't have fully understood why (A) was necessary and why the remaining answer choices were not. But sometimes, it's better to quickly pick an answer with less than 100% confidence. Especially when the question is so challenging that getting to 100% confidence may not be possible anyway.

Shots fired at thrill-seekers and arts students, I guess. But this isn't necessary to this argument. Even if bravery and creativity made it easier to be morally virtuous, the historical figures we find most engaging would still not be morally virtuous (even if they are brave and creative). And as long as we wanted to live their lives too, we could draw this conclusion just fine.

Again, this fails the negation test. Even if almost all historical figures were morally virtuous, it's possible that we still wouldn't find any of the most virtuous ones terribly engaging. And as long as we wanted to live those unvirtuous figures' lives, we could still reach this argument's conclusion.

We don't need to know anything about how people form their ideas about historical figures. Suppose that people developed their ideas about historical figures based on what they imagined about the historical figure. Does that wreck this conclusion? Not really. Let's say that someone didn't know anything about Ivan the Terrible other than his name. And this hypothetical person imagined, based on that name alone, that Ivan the Terrible probably did some people dirty to earn the "Terrible" sobriquet, but probably lived a very enviable life anyway. That person would still have admired and wanted to live the life of someone they imagined lacked moral virtue, which would indicate that they don't value the characteristic of virtue the most. In other words, we could still reach this argument's conclusion, even if we negate this answer choice.

This also fails the negation test. Suppose moral virtue is not the least engaging trait. Does this destroy the conclusion? Not really. As long as moral virtue isn't the most engaging trait, and as long as we want to live the lives unvirtuous historical figures, the overall argument still holds up.