QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: You shouldn’t give up health for money.
REASONING: Without health, you can’t have happiness.
ANALYSIS: This argument appeals to our common sense. Everyone wants happiness, so this argument seems self-evident. But this is the LSAT, and you can’t make assumptions like that. Common sense can let you make predictions, but you can’t use it to prove an argument correct if the question says the argument is not correct.
Maybe wealth is worth having even if you’re horribly unhappy. To prove the argument correct you must eliminate this possibility and say that money is only worth having if you can also be happy.
- CORRECT. If this is true, then you shouldn’t sacrifice your health for money.
- This doesn’t help the argument. If this is true then maybe you can be happy with just money.
- This weakens the argument. We’re trying to prove that we shouldn’t sacrifice health. This shows that health isn’t valuable in itself.
- The argument is only talking about the kind of wealth that destroys happiness. So we already know this answer is true – it can’t prove the argument.
- This doesn’t tell us to seek health instead of wealth. We’re not looking for something that tells us what is likely to lead to happiness. We need an answer that tells us never to seek wealth if it makes us unhappy.
Did you choose this because you thought it was true? That’s not what you’re supposed to be looking for.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly