PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 23
Columnist: The relief from the drudgery of physical(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APhysical labor is(5 more words not shown)
- BSelf-sufficiency contributes to(3 more words not shown)
- CPeople are not(12 more words not shown)
- DAnything causing a(14 more words not shown)
- ETechnology inherently limits(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I would rather turn on the lights than build a fire every time I want to read at night.
I can accept that modern technology makes us dependent on things we can't operate entirely by ourselves. When the power goes out, that dependence becomes obvious. But why does being less self-sufficient mean we're worse off overall? Electricity can make life easier even though we rely on an energy system to supply it.
The columnist moves from losing self-sufficiency to losing well-being. Those are different ideas. Someone could accept the first and still prefer the benefits of technology to a life of doing everything alone. We need a reason to treat self-sufficiency as something that helps people do well in the first place.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument requires. My prediction is that self-sufficiency contributes to well-being. That won't settle every question about technology's benefits and costs. But without that connection, the columnist's stated loss doesn't supply the intended reason for thinking users are worse off.
Working the answers
- A
This makes physical labor essential to a fulfilling life. The argument doesn't require everyone to do physical labor to have such a life. The concern is dependence and lost self-sufficiency. Someone could value self-sufficiency without believing that personally growing food or performing other physical work is essential to fulfillment.
- BCorrect
This connects the loss the columnist identifies with the kind of harm the conclusion claims. If self-sufficiency contributes to well-being, losing it gives us a reason to worry about well-being.
Now remove that connection: suppose self-sufficiency contributed nothing to a person's well-being. Then pointing out that technology makes people less self-sufficient would no longer explain why technology makes them worse off. That's why this assumption is required.
B doesn't prove that technology reduces well-being overall. The benefits could still outweigh this loss, just as the benefits of electricity might outweigh our dependence on the grid. We are identifying a necessary part of the reasoning, not demanding an answer that resolves every remaining objection.
- C
Are people free? That's a different question from whether they are doing well. The columnist doesn't claim that dependence eliminates freedom, and the reasoning doesn't need that sweeping rule about dependence on anything outside ourselves. Focus on the connection to well-being.
- D
The argument mentions life's charm, but it doesn't conclude that technology is unjustifiable. Something could have a cost and still be justified. This answer supplies a rule about when a loss is permissible, while the argument tries to establish a loss in overall well-being.
- E
This is about well-being, so it is closer to the topic than C or D. But it makes the harm inherent in technology. The columnist's stated reason concerns a particular consequence: reduced self-sufficiency. That reasoning doesn't require all technology to limit well-being by its very nature. Technology that avoided this consequence could escape the objection.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.