PrepTest 154

Incorrect. This is nice advice, but it doesn't relate to the conclusion. This is about finding a rule that leads to the conclusion that parents should not do something, so any rule that tells you what parents should do isn't a fit.

Incorrect. Beware of the trap answer! It's appealing because it relates to both the premises and the conclusion, but it's not strong enough to help justify this argument. Under this rule, parents could still teach their children to derive satisfaction from outdoing others, as long as parents also teach their children to do have other desires that are more easily satisfied.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
An advice columnist tells us not to teach kids to be overly motivated by outdoing others, because they'll become resentful and because they'll develop a need for a type of satisfaction that is difficult to obtain.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a very typical Strengthen (Principle) stimulus: a determination about what should or should not be done, and two premises that are just statements of fact related to the subject of the argument. What's missing is a rule that connects these facts to the conclusion drawn. So, we're anticipating either something like "One should not teach kids anything that will make them feel resentment" or "One should never parent in a way that creates a desire for a type of satisfaction that is difficult to obtain."

Answer Explanation:
At first glance this doesn't look right because it doesn't explicitly use terms from the premises, but look again: feeling resentful is definitely not a happy place to be, and constantly yearning for a form of achievement you can't often have would be kind of a bummer, too. "Less" is such a vague quantifier that this rule, if applied literally, would rule out encouraging anything that could reduce someone's happiness at all, by any amount. Feeling resentful and unfulfilled certainly qualifies. So, when applied to this scenario, this principle does, in fact, justify the advice columnist's judgment.

Key Takeaway:
When you have a stimulus that leads to a clear anticipation, don't get frustrated or panic when you don't see that anticipation immediately in the answer choices. There's a pretty good chance it's there, just worded slightly differently or requiring another step of reasoning to get there.

Incorrect. This is out of left field. Nothing in the stimulus tells us about how significant or insignificant the achievement of outdoing others is. An Olympic gold medal is pretty significant, by most people's standards, and also requires outdoing others.

Incorrect. Nice life advice, LSAT, but we are looking for a rule that allows us to determine that a particular parenting tactic is not a good idea. Benign advice about what to teach children to value doesn't help.