PrepTest 110, Section 3, Question 10
Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to(21 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the philosopher's(10 more words not shown)
- Ano one can(19 more words not shown)
- Bthe primary purpose(12 more words not shown)
- Call societies that(7 more words not shown)
- Danyone who lives(16 more words not shown)
- Eeveryone is willing(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could someone be poorly suited to a society and still be happy there?
Let's accept the philosopher's premise about large, bureaucratic societies. We don't have to respond by insisting that some people are perfectly suited to city life. Even after granting the premise, I want to know why being intellectually unsuited rules out happiness.
Intellectual qualities and happiness aren't automatically the same thing. Think of a dog that seems delighted with its life without being especially clever. That isn't a direct example about human societies, but it helps us keep the two ideas apart. Here, we need the more specific connection: does a person's happiness require being intellectually suited to the society they live in? Someone might struggle with that society's demands while still finding happiness in relationships or other parts of life.
What we’re looking for
The philosopher never gives us that connection. The flaw question asks what the argument takes for granted, so that's my prediction: it assumes that people cannot be happy in a society they are intellectually unsuited to live in.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This supplies the assumption behind the jump. The premise says people are intellectually unsuited to large, bureaucratic societies. To use that as a reason they cannot be happy there, the philosopher must connect happiness with being intellectually suited to the society. A states that connection; the argument takes it for granted rather than establishing it.
- B
We aren't told what villages are for. A village might be organized around farming, and its residents might become happy as a byproduct. The argument concerns where happiness is possible, not the primary purpose for which a political unit exists.
- C
The premise refers to societies that are both large and bureaucratic. It doesn't say every bureaucratic society is large, and the argument doesn't need to deny that a village could have a bureaucracy. C doesn't address the unexplained link between being intellectually suited and being happy.
- D
Read the conclusion's qualification: people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units. That makes a smaller unit a requirement, not a guarantee. Perhaps someone in a village still lacks friendship, security, or something else needed for happiness. The philosopher hasn't said that living in a small, less bureaucratic place is enough for anyone to be happy.
- E
Some people might refuse to live in a village. That wouldn't show whether a village is the only place they could be happy. The philosopher's claim is about a condition for happiness, not everyone's willingness to meet that condition.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.