Q17 - Philosopher: Graham argues that since a person

[noah]

September 2007 LSAT preptest 52 explanation

17. (B)
Question Type: Analyze the Structure
This determine the function question involves an argument whose conclusion is that Graham’s argument is unpersuasive. The philosopher explains Graham’s faulty argument: since we’re only truly happy when we’re active, the best life is one in which we are always active. However, the philosopher notes, we are sometimes happy when we sleep, and we are not active at that time. The question asks what role this last point plays in the overall argument. This point is included as part of the philosopher’s general disagreement with Graham, and more specifically, it is intended to show that we are sometimes happy when we’re not active. This shows that Graham’s premise _ that we’re only happy when we’re active _ is not true, as (B) explains.

(A) misidentifies the role since the claim works against Graham’s argument.
(C) incorrectly places the claim as part of Graham’s argument; furthermore, the philosopher does not reject it.
(D) is quite tempting because it correctly places the claim as part of the argument against Graham’s argument. However, the claim is not directly intended to disprove Graham’s conclusion, but instead one of his premises. Furthermore, and this is rather subtle, the philosopher is not trying to disprove the argument, but instead saying that we should not be persuaded by it, meaning that the argument has a faulty premise.
(E) is incorrect since the claim is not the conclusion!


#officialexplanation

[ryan.oconnor110]

Thanks for the explanation Noah.

I just took this exam and was fooled by D.

[theonlyrij]

hey Noah,

I was wondering how you knew that Graham's statement was a premise and not his conclusion. I was left with B and D and landed up choosing D because I thought that Graham's claim was a conclusion.

Thanks

[mcrittell]

hey Noah,

I was wondering how you knew that Graham's statement was a premise and not his conclusion. I was left with B and D and landed up choosing D because I thought that Graham's claim was a conclusion.

Thanks

2nd this

[noah]

Hey All, Sorry I didn't respond earlier (for some reason, I'm the only person to who the forums don't send auto e-mails alerting me to follow-up questions - really annoying!)

Anyway, the most important thing for you to take away here is that this argument is fitting into a common form:

People say X.
They're wrong.
Here's why they're wrong.

In this argument form, "They're wrong" is the conclusion. You'll see this a lot in identify the conclusion arguments. I think the LSAC folks like to use this structure because people - perhaps you on this question! - get fooled into thinking that "People say X" is the conclusion. In this question, the question-writer has made it more difficult by telling you why the people (Graham) says X. But, in the end, the final point that the author (Philosopher) wants to make is that people/Graham are wrong about this idea.

Now, to your specific question - I never stated that Graham's statement is a premise nor did I say it's a conclusion. I see it as the counter-premise that the philosopher is shooting down.

Graham's statement is A conclusion, but it's not THE conclusion of the philosopher's argument. It's the conclusion of Graham's argument! And we're asked about that argument.

I hope that clears it up.

[nflamel69]

Noah,

I was also down to B and D. However, I don't think the conclusion mentioned in D meant philosopher's conclusion, but rather grahams. What led me to eliminate D is that the philosopher isn't really countering graham's conclusion (the best life is a life full of activity) as much as countering his premise (they are happy only when they are doing something). He basically showed that the necessary condition is not necessary. Does that sound right?

[noah]

Noah,

I was also down to B and D. However, I don't think the conclusion mentioned in D meant philosopher's conclusion, but rather grahams.

I agree - I don't think I referred to it as the philosopher's conclusion, but maybe I'm missing something in the thread above.

What led me to eliminate D is that the philosopher isn't really countering Graham's conclusion (the best life is a life full of activity) as much as countering his premise (they are happy only when they are doing something). He basically showed that the necessary condition is not necessary. Does that sound right?

Yes, it looks like you're agreeing with the explanation for (D) I posted originally.

I don't think you need to get into thinking very formally about necessary conditions here--it's a bit simpler than that: Graham says X (we're only happy when doing things) --> Y (the best life if full of activity) and the Philosopher shows that X doesn't have to be true (we can be happy without doing anything). Thus, the argument isn't valid.

Yes, that premise is proven false because the supposedly necessary condition isn't necessary. Formally, the premise is "happy --> doing something," and that premise is shown false, because, as you say, the necessary isn't truly necessary.

But, as I am hinting at, I suggest you stay as simple as you can -- get into the more complex issues in an argument when you need to.

Thanks for posting.

[T.J.]

First, I just want to shout out to Noah, and say thank you for the explanation of this rather subtle argument part question.

Second, this is an interesting question as we can actually relate it to another category - the questions about agreement or disagreement between two sides. The philosopher disapproves the premise of Graham's argument, not his conclusion. On another level, Graham's conclusion can happen to be true, but the philosopher does not like the way Graham use this very premise in question to support his conclusion for the reason that the premise is contradicted by fact.

In the agreement and disagreement questions, we tend to face the challenge of identifying the intersection of two arguments, the skill that's also called for in this question. After all, these questions are not all that different from each other. It helps a lot if we connect the dots. Thanks guys.

[noah]

Second, this is an interesting question as we can actually relate it to another category - the questions about agreement or disagreement between two sides.

That's smart!

[pipegroup]

I too fell for D. I think the source of confusion, at least the part that fooled me, is that the first line is stating BOTH a premise and a conclusion in a single sentence! Notice the comma..."since a person..." is a premise, the comma is basically a therefore, then "the best life...". Devious, very devious.

[andrewgong01]

I agree and see "B" is correct


However, I am still not seeing "D". I understand the subtle point brought up earlier ( author was not intending on disproving but telling us to not be persuaded by it , albeit they seem pretty similar)

However, how do we know that a claim is not meant to disprove someone's conclusion because by disproving someone's premise (i.e. saying it is "wrong") that seems to be also disproving a conclusion because , in the argument core, the conclusion depends on the premise and by attacking the premise the connection to the conclusion is also being attacked.

[ohthatpatrick]

To refute or disprove a claim is to argue for its opposite truth value.

If you conclude "the soup is hot" because "Timmy hasn't tried it yet", and I'm intending to disprove your conclusion, then I am specifically trying to convince my audience that "the soup is NOT hot".

If I instead say, "That's not true. Timmy DID try it. You just weren't looking." then I'm only correcting your premise. I'm not commenting on your conclusion. Maybe Timmy tried it, and it really IS hot.

A lot of "person 2 responding to person 1" on LSAT is either
"I agree with your premise, but NOT with your conclusion"
or
"I disagree with your premise, so you HAVE NOT CONVINCED me of your conclusion"

It's actually one of the 10 Classic Flaws to argue
"I disagree with your premise, therefore your conclusion must also be wrong."
(Unproven vs. Untrue)

In the case of (B) vs. (D), I'm just leaning on the fact that the last sentence is a counterexample to the claim "A person is truly happy only when doing something".

And because that claim is prefaced by the word "since", I know that the author has provided a counterexample to a premise.

[Yuliam1994]

Hi,

I am new to this but thought I would offer my two cents of understanding. The first thing I did was identify the author's conclusion, which was that: "We should not be persuaded by Graham's argument." I knew this was the conclusion because the other two sentences in the passage were informational premises, one of the author's premises explained Graham's argument and the other provided a particular example to illustrate that Graham's argument premise is false.

Since the function of the supporting premises are based on the relationship to the conclusion, I chose answer B because the statement that "At least sometimes when sleeping, people are truly happy, even though they are not doing anything," was clearly intended by the author to show how a premise of Graham's argument is false.

Hope this helps someone!!