LSAT 135 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Philosopher: Graham argues that since a person …

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Graham’s argument isn’t convincing.

REASONING:

• Graham thinks the best life is full of activity because people are only truly happy when they’re doing something.
• But sometimes people are truly happy while sleeping, even though they’re not doing anything.

ANALYSIS: The philosopher thinks we shouldn’t be persuaded by Graham’s argument. Why? Because the philosopher thinks one of Graham’s premises is false.

Graham reasons that people are truly happy only when doing something.

The philosopher attacks that first premise by giving a counterexample: people are sometimes truly happy while sleeping.

Sleeping is important because it satisfies two conditions: (1) people are happy, and (2) they’re not doing anything.

So this one example directly contradicts Graham’s premise.

Notice that it doesn’t directly attack Graham’s conclusion (“the best life is a life full of activity”). Instead, it attacks the premise Graham used to reach that conclusion.

___________

1. This claim is introduced by the philosopher, not Graham. In fact, it contradicts Graham’s reasoning.
2. CORRECT. Exactly. The sleeping example is a counterexample to Graham’s premise that people are truly happy only when doing something.
3. It’s not an analogy offered by Graham. It’s a direct counterexample offered by the philosopher.
4. This is tempting but wrong. The example doesn’t directly show that the best life isn’t active. Instead, it attacks the premise Graham uses to support that conclusion.
5. The conclusion is that we shouldn’t be persuaded by Graham’s argument. The sleeping example is evidence for that conclusion, not the conclusion itself.