PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 10
Megan: People pursue wealth beyond what their basic(63 more words not shown)
Megan and Channen disagree over(1 more words not shown)
- Apeople ever pursue(9 more words not shown)
- Bit is irrational(14 more words not shown)
- Cthe pursuit of(11 more words not shown)
- Dit is rational(24 more words not shown)
- Ethe motive for(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe someone wants more money simply to have more choices.
Megan says people pursue wealth beyond their basic needs only for status or prestige. That's a strong restriction on their motives. Money might bring prestige, but is impressing other people the only reason someone would want more of it?
Channen says no. Extra money lets you buy things you may want later, even if you don't care what anyone thinks of you. Wanting that flexibility is different from wanting a higher position in other people's eyes. Channen isn't denying that money can bring prestige; the reply gives another reason to accumulate it.
What we’re looking for
So the disagreement concerns why people pursue extra wealth. I'd look for a statement asking whether a motive besides prestige ever drives that pursuit. Megan rules it out; Channen allows it.
Working the answers
- A
The dispute isn't over whether people pursue more wealth than their basic needs require. Megan describes a motive for doing so, and Channen offers another. Both accounts allow the pursuit; they differ over what can drive it.
- B
Neither speaker calls the pursuit of status irrational. Describing someone's motive isn't the same as judging whether that motive is sensible. Megan could approve of seeking prestige, and Channen could approve of it while pointing out that some people want something else.
- C
We don't have either speaker's rule for when pursuing wealth is irrational. The discussion identifies possible purposes for pursuing it. It doesn't address the rationality of pursuing money with no further purpose, much less establish this “only when” condition.
- D
This adds an evaluation the speakers don't make. Channen says purchasing power can motivate someone independently of prestige. That doesn't mean Channen thinks seeking purchasing power is rational only when prestige is absent. The existence of another motive doesn't make the prestige motive irrational.
- ECorrect
Megan's “only if” restricts the pursuit of wealth beyond basic needs to a desire for status or prestige. She would deny that someone does it for a wholly different motive. Channen describes exactly such a person: someone who wants the goods and options money can buy while remaining indifferent to other people's opinions. Megan says there is no other motive; Channen says there can be.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.