LR Drill Set 10, Question 9
Psychologist: Studies have shown that people who have(38 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the psychologist's(16 more words not shown)
- Aa condition that(19 more words not shown)
- Beven if one(16 more words not shown)
- Cwhen one phenomenon(9 more words not shown)
- Deven if two(20 more words not shown)
- Eeven if a(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if happy people are more likely to set ambitious goals?
I can see the appeal of the psychologist's explanation. Having something meaningful to work toward could give a person a sense of purpose. But a plausible explanation still needs evidence. The study tells us that the people pursuing big goals are happier on average; it doesn't show which came first or what produced the difference.
Maybe feeling happy and optimistic makes a person more willing to take on a challenge. An unhappy person might find that harder. In that situation, the same study result could appear even if assigning ambitious goals did nothing to make unhappy people happier.
What we’re looking for
So the flaw isn't that goals definitely fail to help. They might help. The problem is treating an association as enough to prescribe a cause. For the flaw question, I want an answer that leaves open the possibility we just identified: the groups differ in happiness, but pursuing goals needn't be what creates that difference.
Working the answers
- A
The passage doesn't first establish that ambitious goals are required for happiness and then mistake that requirement for a guarantee. It doesn't say people without big goals cannot be happy. The error comes from the study's association, not from misusing a stated requirement.
- BCorrect
Ambitious goal pursuit is associated with greater happiness, but that doesn't establish that the goals help cause the happiness. Our alternative explanation illustrates the gap: happiness might make people more likely to pursue goals.
The psychologist therefore hasn't shown that encouraging unhappy people to adopt goals will produce the benefit. B captures the general problem without having to insist that our particular alternative is the true explanation.
- C
Mutual influence would mean goals affect happiness and happiness also affects goal pursuit. But allowing the second influence doesn't by itself undermine the proposed benefit of the first. The more basic question is whether goals contribute to happiness at all. C begins by granting an influence we are still trying to establish.
- D
Here the two things are associated: goal pursuers are much happier on average. D describes a different situation in which things lack a strong association but one might still bring about the other. That doesn't identify the unsupported step from this observed association to the psychologist's recommendation.
- E
The psychologist never claims goal pursuit is the only possible way to become happier. Other routes could exist while this one also helped. Pointing out an alternative route to a result doesn't address whether the proposed route works in the first place.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.