LSAT PrepTest 44 Section 4 Question 18 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


Here's a Logical Reasoning question from the October 2004 LSAT.

A chain of phrases is helpful here:

Pursuing happiness isn't just following desires --> Must consider consequences --> Some desires are compulsions --> compulsions don't lead to happiness

We can't pre-phrase here because any number of statements might be true given the philosophers statements. So, let's jump right into the answer choices, remembering that we're looking for that choice that can't be true:

A) Entirely possible because this choice is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument never talks about how many people have compulsions; it just says they exist. Since the argument never addresses this point, this choice may be right.

B) Correct. This one can't be true because the argument says that some desires are compulsions and that the satisfaction of a compulsion results in no happiness; so, the satisfaction of all desires cannot result in happiness. Our chain of phrases makes this clear.

C) Wrong for the same reason as A. The argument never addresses how many people rationally pursue happiness. Now, the philosopher does say that our desires are often focused on the short-term, but he doesn't say that most people are focused on desires and thus not rationally pursuing happiness.

D) Wrong for the same reason as A and C.

E) Out of scope and thus possible and wrong. The philosopher says that we should consider the long-term consequences of actions but never addresses whether or not all actions have long-term consequences. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Remember:

1) Use a chain of phrases to help answer questions (underlining can do this, but I write them out here to make things clearer).

2) Get rid of answer choices that are outside the argument's scope (the argument never addresses them).