PrepTest 122

Incorrect. This answer is too neutral—it doesn't explain how these functions determine praiseworthiness. Also, the stimulus doesn't discuss consequences.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about praiseworthiness, not blameworthiness, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Avoiding alcohol shouldn't be praised in at least the following two situations:
(1) When someone views it as a luxury they can't afford
(2) When someone doesn't like alcohol (unless they painstakingly trained themselves to overcome such a desire)

Answer Anticipation:
This is a tricky one! It's tricky because we need to justify multiple situations leading to the same conclusion.

That conclusion is that abstaining from alcohol isn't praiseworthy in certain situations. Those situations are outlined in the Summary so we're not going to repeat them here.

However, it's important to note that the stem asks us to justify the "claims," so we need to find an answer that accounts for both situations and the exception to the second.

Instead of anticipating a convoluted answer that hits all three points, let's identify what the answer has to look like for the common element—the conclusion/judgment. That judgment is that refraining from alcohol isn't praiseworthy. So to justify that, we need an answer that establishes a sufficient condition for not being praiseworthy, or a necessary condition for being praiseworthy (which would give us a sufficient condition for not being praiseworthy when we take the contrapositive). Let's start our analysis of each answer there, and then, if it works on that front, consider if it encapsulates all of the scenarios in the stimulus.

Answer Explanation:
This is the only answer that establishes a sufficient condition for not being praiseworthy (by establishing a necessary condition for being praiseworthy), which would be enough to select this answer. Analyzing it a little more deeply, we can take the contrapositive here to make it easier to analyze:
If a person didn't overcome a desire to do something that s/he felt able to afford → not Praiseworthy

This answer accounts for someone who doesn't believe they can afford the luxury of drinking, justifying the conclusion in the second situation. It accounts for those who naturally don't have a desire to drink while excluding those who developed that lack of desire ("didn't overcome"), justifying the conclusion in the second case while building in the exception. This answer thus addresses the conclusion for all relevant cases, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen (Principle) questions, always anchor your approach in the conclusion/judgment drawn. Know what an answer has to look like that can justify that conclusion, and eliminate any answer that doesn't let you get there. This can often be enough to eliminate several answers—here, it got rid of all 4 wrong answers!—making your life a lot easier.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss criteria for establishing praiseworthiness, so it doesn't justify the claims by the Ethicist which focus on establishing that.

Incorrect. First, this answer is as much about blame as praise, making it suspect. Second, it talks about the "ease of the lives," which is out of scope of the argument.