PrepTest 135

Incorrect. See, this is why we split the argument up into two arguments! The statement in question is a part of the Philosopher's argument, not Graham's, so this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Graham: Truly happy → Doing something. Therefore, the best life is full of activity.

Philosopher: Sometimes, when sleeping, people are both truly happy and not doing something. Therefore, Graham's argument is unpersuasive.

Answer Anticipation:
We broke this Argument Structure stimulus into two arguments because, well, there are two arguments featured in it, even if it's not split up by the LSAT into a two-speaker stimulus. This will make it easier to analyze.

Here, Graham makes an argument that bases a conclusion about the "best life" on a conditional statement about true happiness. Fair enough.

The Philosopher starts her argument with an opinion of Graham's argument—it's not persuasive. Before moving on, it's important to distinguish this opinion from other common opinions of opposing points on the LSAT. Here, the Philosopher isn't saying that Graham is wrong—that the best life isn't full of activity. She's only claiming that his argument isn't persuasive. An argument can have a true conclusion but not be persuasive—for example, "Oranges are round, so the Earth is round." Not persuasive, but it has a true conclusion. Since this question is asking us to describe the role of a statement in the argument, it could be important to have a correct understanding of the conclusion.

So how does the Philosopher go about showing Grama's argument isn't persuasive? Talks about a situation where someone is truly happy but isn't doing anything—those were the terms in Graham's conditional, so it appears the Philosopher is attempting to rebut it with a counterexample.

Counterexamples to conditionals need to establish that the sufficient condition can be present without the necessary condition, and that's what happens here. Graham claims that whenever someone is truly happy, they're doing something. The Philosopher shows a situation where someone is truly happy without doing anything.

So the Philosopher rebuts Graham's argument by using a counterexample to show that a premise of his argument is false. The statement in question is that counterexample, so let's find an answer describing that role.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the role of the statement in question as we defined it. Graham established a conditional, and the statement in question highlighted an example where the sufficient condition of that premise was met without the necessary condition. That's an effective counterexample, which shows the conditional statement is false, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Especially in Argument Structure questions, be sure you understand the meaning of a main point that states an opinion of an opposing point. There's a difference between saying the opposing conclusion is unsupported and saying it's false, and that difference could be the difference between two answers.

Incorrect. The statement in question is an example relied on by the Philosopher, so this answer is wrong.

Incorrect. So close! However, remember our discussion of the meaning of the Philosopher's conclusion? She didn't set out to disprove his conclusion—she set out to show that his premise(s) didn't support that conclusion. If her conclusion was that Graham was wrong, or that the best life isn't full of activity, then this answer would be correct.

Incorrect. The Philosopher pivots to her opinion of Graham's argument, and the author's opinion of the opposing point is almost always the main point of an argument that features one. The statement in question is a counterexample meant to support that opinion, making it a premise.