LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The desire for praise is the desire to obtain, as a…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: You don’t deserve praise if the desire for praise motivates you to help others.
REASONING: We deserve praise only if we’re trying to help others.
ANALYSIS: The argument hasn’t shown that people who want praise also lack a desire to help others. We can have multiple motives for any action. We may like to help others as well as ourselves.
___________
- CORRECT. If we can’t have both motives then this is a good argument. Desire for praise means no desire to help others.
- This sounds good, but the argument hasn’t proven that those actions are motivated solely by a desire for praise. People can have multiple motives.
- The argument hasn’t said that people motivated by praise are indifferent to the welfare of others.
- People might well advance the interest of others if they take action to help them. So they could deserve praise.
- This shows that we’re correct to focus on motives. But this doesn’t let us say that people who desire praise also lack a desire to help others.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
As noris has pointed out years ago, I cant help but agree that the word choice “primarily” very much leaves room for both a desire to help others and the desire for good opinions from others. Its just that the latter is “primarily” motivated. If this interpretation is true then it runs direct counter to what A suggest as it contradicts the conclusion of the stimulus.
While your point about the word “primarily” leaving room for mixed motives is well founded, the situation you describe is exactly what A rules out. The conclusion of the argument depends on ruling out the possibility that an action driven primarily by a desire for praise can simultaneously fulfil the condition for deserving praise (i.e. being motivated by a desire to help others). This is exactly what A established by clarifying that an action motivated by a desire for the favorable opinion of others cannot also be motivated by a desire to help others.
Without this assumption, the argument’s reasoning would fall apart, as it would leave open the possibility that mixed motives (even when dominated by the desire for praise) might still satisfy the conditions for deserving praise – which is what I think you’re getting at. By eliminating this possibility, A ensures the conclusion properly follows. Thus, while “primarily” does imply mixed motives could exist, A specifically excludes the possibility that one of those motives could be a desire to help others.
Hopefully that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
i am confused on how the correct answer could be A, when the stimulus clearly says “primarily” —
which allows for the other desire to be to help others. thanks.