PrepTest 113

[lcid:3551] Prep Test 113 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

The desire for praise Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Sufficient Premise Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Desire for praise = Desire to get others to like you
Merit praise → Motivated to act to help others
Therefore - Motivated primarily out of desire for praise → ~Merit praise

Answer Anticipation

As with many Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, this one features conditional logic, so we should diagram the statements out. Generally, the argument will be flawed for one of two reasons - it will fail to establish that a conditional principle applies in a specific case, or it will fail to establish a link in a conditional chain. Since this argument has a conditional premise and a conditional conclusion, we’re likely missing a link in a chain.
The opening line here sets up an equivalency - one this is another. This can be viewed as a conditional/biconditional, but we represented it with an equal sign here since the argument treats them as equivalent.
The conditional premise uses “only” to indicate the necessary condition, establishing a motive to help others as necessary for an action to merit praise. However, the conclusion of the argument (“it follows that”) talks about someone not meriting praise, so we should take the contrapositive of the premise:
~Motivated to act to help others → ~Merit praise
This premise now lines up with the conclusion that treats being motivated primarily out of a desire for praise (slash a desire to get others to like you) as being sufficient to allow the determination that one doesn’t deserve praise:
Motivated primarily out of a desire for praise/to get others to like you → ~Merit praise
The necessary conditions line up, but the sufficient conditions are subtly different! Someone who is motivated primarily out of a desire for praise/to get others to like them isn’t necessarily not also motivated by a desire to help others. The principle in the stimulus isn’t that one need be motivated only by the desire to help others to merit praise!
However, since the argument treats being motivated primarily by that desire for praise/to be liked by others as sufficient to show that the person isn’t motivated by a desire to help, we should look for that answer, or its contrapositive:
Motivated by desire for praise/to be liked → ~Motivated to act to help others
Motivated to act to help others → ~Motivated by desire for praise/to be liked

Answer choices

  1. A
    An action that is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    This answer establishes that the two motivations are mutually exclusive. If that’s the case, someone motivated by a desire for praise can’t be motivated by a desire to help others, and thus they don’t merit praise, as the conclusion states. This answer justifies the conclusion and is therefore correct.
  2. B
    No action is worthy Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer can be tempting - it seems like a stronger version of the conclusion (“primarily” vs. “solely”), which would in fact justify that conclusion! However, there are two issues here. First, this answer is about an action worthy of praise, whereas the conclusion of the argument is about a person being worthy of praise. It’s possible that an action can be praiseworthy while the person doing it isn’t. And second, it’s not really a stronger version of the conclusion in the stimulus because being motivated primarily by a desire for praise and being motivated solely by it are different concepts, not different strengths of the same concept. Eating a meal that’s solely cheese isn’t a “stronger” version of a meal that is primarily cheese.
  3. C
    People who are indifferent Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    First, to be relevant, we need to assume that those who are indifferent to the welfare of others can’t be motivated by a desire to help others. Even if that’s the case, this answer essentially restates the second premise (contrapositive of how it’s presented in the stimulus), so it can’t justify the conclusion.
  4. D
    One deserves praise for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The argument is about a desire to help others, which may or may not result in actually advancing their interests, so this answer is out of scope.
  5. E
    It is the motives Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The argument relies on motive rather than consequence being the relevant factor, but that doesn’t justify the conclusion. This is more of a necessary premise.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion