PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 20
The desire for praise is the desire to(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AAn action that(21 more words not shown)
- BNo action is(13 more words not shown)
- CPeople who are(10 more words not shown)
- DOne deserves praise(14 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't I want to help and want the credit?
Strip away the wordy opening. Wanting praise means wanting other people to think well of me. Deserving praise is a different question. The author gives us a requirement for deserving it: the action must be motivated by a desire to help others. That doesn't say a helpful motive is enough by itself, but it does say we need one.
Imagine I help an older person cross the street mostly because I want people to admire me. A smaller part of my motivation is that I actually want to help the person. The conclusion rules out praise because admiration is my primary goal. But I've still met the stated requirement of having a motive to help. That doesn't prove I deserve praise; it shows why the premise hasn't ruled me out.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, I'd look for a rule that prevents these motives from coexisting. If wanting others' approval meant I couldn't also want to help, I would lack the motive the premise requires.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This supplies exactly that rule. A desire for others' favorable opinion cannot coexist with a desire to help. Someone acting primarily for praise has the first motive, so under A that person cannot also have the second.
The premise requires a desire to help in order to deserve praise. A takes that required motive away from the person described in the conclusion. We can therefore say the person doesn't deserve praise for the aid. A is a strong rule, covering even actions only partly motivated by approval, but that is fine: the question asks for something that makes the conclusion follow.
- B
Solely means entirely. Primarily means mostly. The person in my example has mixed motives, with admiration as the main one. A rule disqualifying actions done entirely for praise doesn't cover that person. B leaves open precisely the case the argument needs to rule out.
- C
Wanting praise more than anything else doesn't establish indifference to other people's welfare. I might care about the person crossing the street even while caring more about the approving audience. C disqualifies people who don't care; it doesn't show that everyone acting primarily for praise belongs to that group.
- D
This concerns advancing interests, which describes what an action accomplishes. The premise concerns a desire to help, which describes why someone acts. Even if the aid advances both the helper's interests and another person's interests, D doesn't settle whether a mixed motive disqualifies the helper from praise. It gives another requirement without establishing that the person fails it.
- E
Saying motives determine whether praise is deserved doesn't tell us how to judge a mix of motives. We would still need a rule explaining why a main desire for approval cancels out a smaller desire to help. E doesn't provide one. Nor should we assume the original premise makes consequences entirely irrelevant: it gives a required motive, not a complete account of everything that could matter.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.