PrepTest 131

Incorrect. While Deirdre's conclusion is a bit of an attack on the philosophers, it's based on an analysis of their reasoning, not their character, so this ad hominem answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss different types of happiness, but rather whether what causes one person happiness shifts over time. This answer suggests that someone might only experience happiness on that walk on the beach sometimes, but that would still highlight them experiencing happiness in the moment, so this answer doesn't highlight a flaw in Deirdre's reasoning.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Philosophers - Happiness (fully living up to your potential) is a long, hard roadDeirdre - People can feel happy on a long walk on a beach, so being happy isn't as hard as philosophers make it seem, and they're thus too pessimistic.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two features of this argument that suggest different flaws, and an analysis shows that they actually point at the same flaw.

First, the argument features a rebuttal to a viewpoint that involves a counterexample. When that happens, it's important to see if the counterexample actually rebuts the opposing point. Here, Deirdre brings up a situation that shows someone experiencing feelings of happiness, but that's different from what the philosophers are discussing—a deeper level of happiness that comes from living up to your potential over time. Since the counterexample fails to address the actual point made by the Philosophers, Deirdre's use of it is flawed.

Similarly, the stimulus defines a key term—happiness. When a key term is defined, there's a good chance that the argument is going to shift its meaning later in the argument. That's what happens here—the Philosophers are talking about happiness as a long-term feeling of fulfillment, whereas Deirdre is talking about short-term feelings of happiness from momentary pleasures. This is the same shift as the previous flaw—Deirdre, in discussing a different kind of happiness, fails to address the point made by the Philosophers, and thus her conclusion about them being unduly pessimistic is flawed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the shift in meaning of "happiness," from the Philosophers' definition of a long-term fulfillment to Deirdre's of a short-term pleasure.

Key Takeaway:
When a counterexample is used to address an argument, make sure that that counterexample actually addresses the content that it's meant to oppose! Also, whenever a key term is defined, there's a good chance that the argument is going to shift the meaning of that term in the argument, thus leading to a flawed rebuttal.

Incorrect. The debate is over whether it's hard to be happy, not whether that should be a goal in life. Deirdre's argument doesn't discuss goals at all!

Incorrect. Deirdre's conclusion is specifically about what the Philosophers are claiming, so there's no jump from the Philosophers to a wider group, and thus there isn't a sampling flaw.