PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 17
One should never sacrifice one's health in order(10 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- AMoney should be(10 more words not shown)
- BIn order to(9 more words not shown)
- CHealth should be(7 more words not shown)
- DBeing wealthy is,(6 more words not shown)
- EHealth is more(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if I care more about money than happiness?
The author tells me I can't be happy without health, then tells me never to sacrifice health for money. But the first statement only matters to that recommendation if preserving the possibility of happiness should guide the decision. Someone who only wants a huge bank balance hasn't yet been given a reason to accept that priority.
“Never” also invites questions about smaller tradeoffs. What if someone accepts a temporary hardship to earn money for a family member's treatment? Real decisions can be more complicated than this short argument. Here, though, we're being asked to supply a rule that makes the stated conclusion follow: don't give up health to acquire money when losing health makes happiness impossible.
What we’re looking for
So connect the recommendation to happiness. We should acquire money only when doing so leaves happiness possible. Once that rule is in place, the health requirement gives us a reason to reject the proposed trade.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Money should be acquired only if acquiring it will not make happiness unobtainable. The passage says happiness is unobtainable without health. Giving up health for money therefore violates A's requirement, so we shouldn't make that trade. A supplies the missing reason that losing the possibility of happiness should rule out acquiring money that way.
- B
This lists a requirement for happiness: money or health. It doesn't tell us that we should preserve happiness when deciding how to acquire money. It also doesn't say money by itself guarantees happiness or can replace health. We can't turn “one of these is required” into “either one is enough.”
- C
This says how health should be valued: only as a requirement for happiness. It doesn't say preserving happiness should take priority over acquiring money. Someone could accept that account of health's value and still choose money over the possibility of happiness.
- D
Wealth sometimes contributing to unhappiness doesn't establish that we should never sacrifice health for money. We aren't told that those conditions apply here, and we still lack a rule telling us how happiness should affect our choice.
- E
Even if health contributes more to happiness than wealth does, why must happiness determine the decision? The comparison leaves that priority unstated. It also falls short of the absolute rule against a trade that A supplies by making continued access to happiness a requirement for acquiring money.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.