PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 26
A member of the British Parliament is reputed(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- ADifferent things make(3 more words not shown)
- BThe proposed reform(16 more words not shown)
- CThe proposed reform(13 more words not shown)
- DIncreasing some people's(15 more words not shown)
- EGood social reforms(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Making your constituents happy doesn't tell us what happens to everyone else.
I might question whether happiness should be the leading measure of a good reform. What about fairness or rights? But we don't even have to debate that to challenge this argument. Accept the stated goal of increasing total happiness. The proposal still needs to meet that goal, and making one group happier doesn't necessarily do it.
Imagine that a reform raises Bob's happiness by one unit but reduces Steve's by two. Bob benefits, yet the total falls by one. The numbers just make the comparison concrete: we need to account for losses as well as gains. A policy could please the member's constituents while leaving other people worse off by an even greater amount.
What we’re looking for
For the weakening question, I'd want an answer addressing that overlooked harm. The strongest version of our prediction would say that the losses outweigh the gains. An answer can also weaken the reasoning by exposing the possibility the member has failed to consider.
Working the answers
- A
Different tastes don't establish that this reform hurts anyone or fails to increase total happiness. Some people might like flowers while others like puppies, and a policy could still increase happiness overall. We need information about the policy's gains and losses, not just diversity in what people enjoy.
- B
Not making most people happier isn't enough. If a few people become happier and everyone else stays equally happy, total happiness rises. B is compatible with that outcome.
Strictly speaking, “would not increase” doesn't tell us whether those other people stay equally happy or become less happy. We shouldn't silently choose the harmful possibility. B doesn't establish the offsetting loss that would answer our objection.
- C
This helps the argument. The reform makes the constituents happy and affects nobody else, so there is no loss to other people to offset that gain. It removes the particular concern we raised about the member's calculation.
- DCorrect
A gain for some people can be canceled or exceeded by a loss for others. That is exactly what the argument overlooks when it moves from making the constituents happy to increasing total human happiness.
D doesn't say that this particular reform definitely makes others unhappy. It identifies why the member's evidence is insufficient: the constituents' gain alone doesn't settle the total. That challenges the claimed connection even without proving the proposal will fail.
- E
The argument's stated test is increased happiness, not widespread support. E also doesn't tell us whether this proposal has widespread support. Saying that good reforms usually have support therefore doesn't show that this proposal fails the member's own test.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.