LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#36688
Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion, SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

Although this is a short stimulus, it can still be extremely challenging (many consider this question
to be one of the most difficult in the section). The author opens with the conclusion, which is that
one should never sacrifice one’s health in order to acquire money. This is based on the single premise
presented in the second half of the single-sentence stimulus (the premise is introduced by the word
“for”), which is that if you don’t have health, happiness is unobtainable. More simply diagrammed
and restated:
  • Premise: ..... sacrifice health ..... :arrow: ..... happiness obtainable

    Conclusion: ..... acquiring money doesn’t justify the sacrifice of one’s health.
So, something that should be traded for money should not require the sacrifice of your health,
because without health, you cannot obtain happiness.

The stimulus is followed by a Justify question stem, so the correct answer choice will provide a
premise that justifies the author’s conclusion that one should not sacrifice one’s health in order to
acquire money. If we are to use the mechanistic approach to respond to this question, we can see
that the element that recurs in both the premise and the conclusion is that of “sacrifice one’s health.”
The two rogue elements are those of “happiness obtainable” and “acquisition of money.” Some link
between these two elements is necessary to justify the author’s conclusion, and this connection is
provided by correct answer choice (A). Note that those elements do not have to be negative (consider
what would occur if the contrapositive of both statements above were used—then each “rogue”
element would be positive instead of negative).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer should be an immediate
Contender because it contains both “rogue” elements in the argument. And, as discussed above,
if something should be traded for the acquisition of money, it should not come at the cost of your
health, because this would make happiness unobtainable. Ultimately, it is the only answer that
contains both “rogue” elements, so even you were a bit uncertain of the meaning of this answer, you
should still choose it based on your mechanistic analysis.

Answer choice (B): This incorrect answer choice provides a conditional rule that would not justify
the author’s conclusion. Since this choice fails to deal with the issue of whether something should be
traded for money, it is not the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C): The author has already provided that health is necessary for happiness. This
choice would make happiness the only outcome of good health, which plays no role in the argument.

Answer choice (D): This incorrect choice allows for the possibility that some wealthy people are
not happy. This would not justify the claim that health (and thus happiness) shouldn’t be traded for
money.

Answer choice (E): The author of the stimulus has already provided that health is a necessary precondition for happiness, so this answer choice, which says that health is better than money at providing happiness, adds nothing to the argument, and fails to justify the author’s conclusion.
 moshei24
  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: Mar 20, 2012
|
#5668
I got this one right, but I did so without diagramming it. I want to make sure I understand how to diagram it properly.

Side Question: Is it a good thing to do a question like this without diagramming it? I feel like this one was more straightforward if you don't diagram...

Conclusion: Acquire Money :arrow: Sacrifice Health (Is "sacrifice health" the same thing as "Healthy" not negated?

Health:arrow: Happiness or Happiness :arrow: Health

(A) Money :arrow: Health (?) Is that how (A) is diagrammed?

I think what's giving me trouble diagramming this is the dense way each conditional statement is written.

The way I see it is like this:

The premise is Happiness :arrow: Health.

The conclusion is Money :arrow: Health (because "sacrifice health" the same thing as "Healthy" not negated, correct?)

So the premise needed it Money :arrow: Happiness, because with this statement we know that Money :arrow: Health because it connects it.

But would it be smarter to not start diagramming and instead just answer it conceptually?

Thanks!
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#5884
I think there are some problems with your diagram - the conclusion, that one should not sacrifice health for money, is not really a conditional statement. "Should" typically won't be in a conditional relationship unless it is accompanied by another indicator (such as "if you are hungry, then you should eat"). Your other conditional relationship (Happy --> Healthy) is correct. The best approach here is the conceptual one that got you there - recognize the missing link between money and happiness and pick the answer that links them in the right way.

You can get there conditionally, with the proper use of the qualifier "should" in your diagram, but it's hardly worth the effort to put it in those terms. It's really more of a pure logic problem (there should be no overlap between acquiring money and sacrificing health, because sacrificing health means sacrificing happiness; the leap between premise and conclusion is made by adding that you should not acquire money if it causes you to sacrifice happiness).

That's my two cents, anyway.

Adam
 moshei24
  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: Mar 20, 2012
|
#5905
So my route of not diagramming was the right route? The whole "should" qualification makes it annoyingly messy. Well, in general, it's messier than doing it conceptually?

Thank you.
 netherlands
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: Apr 17, 2013
|
#9844
Hi there PS,

I'm still having a hard time and am stumbling in JC questions. Can you explain this one to me?

So far I see that:

Hapiness :arrow: Health

Lack of Health :arrow: Lack of happiness

Thus, do not choose to have lack of health for money. Why? Because lack of health, with money, will lead to lack of happiness.

Please help! Also, if there's any further advice on how to get better at these I'd appreciate it. I've already done the course and feel a tad bit better - but I still get nervous and stumble on them.
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1153
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#9849
Although this is a short stimulus, it can still be extremely challenging (many consider this question to be one of the most difficult in the section). The author opens with the conclusion, which is that one should never sacrifice one’s health in order to acquire money. This is based on the single premise presented in the second half of the single-sentence stimulus (the premise is introduced by the word “for”), which is that if you don’t have health, happiness is unobtainable. More simply diagrammed and restated:

Premise:                sacrifice health .....   :arrow: ..... happiness obtainable

Conclusion:                acquiring money doesn’t justify the sacrifice of one’s health.

So, something that should be traded for money should not require the sacrifice of your health, because without health, you cannot obtain happiness.


The stimulus is followed by a Justify question stem, so the correct answer choice will provide a premise that justifies the author’s conclusion that one should not sacrifice one’s health in order to acquire money. If we are to use the mechanistic approach to respond to this question, we can see that the element that recurs in both the premise and the conclusion is that of “sacrifice one’s health.” The two rogue elements are those of “happiness obtainable” and “acquisition of money.” Some link between these two elements is necessary to justify the author’s conclusion, and this connection is provided by correct answer choice A, which should be an immediate Contender because it contains both “rogue” elements in the argument. And, as discussed above, if something should be traded for the acquisition of money, it should not come at the cost of your health, because this would make happiness unobtainable. Ultimately, A is the only answer that contains both “rogue” elements, so even you were a bit uncertain of the meaning of this answer, you should still choose it based on a mechanistic analysis.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve
 netherlands
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: Apr 17, 2013
|
#9916
Hi there,

Well, I could definitely eliminate B and C via the mechanistic approach. I think I'm really just not that strong in JC questions...

When you're looking at this question do you consider "unhappiness" to be the same thing as the "rogue" element "happiness" but just the opposite. I feel like if for no other strong powerscore reason/tactic I could recognize- I should have eliminated anything that had to do with "unhappiness" because it wasn't discussed in the stimulus and any answer choice that referenced to it was making assumption about a "logical opposite" of something made in the stimulus which seems to be a big no-no on this test. If that's also another way it can be looked at I guess I could have eliminated D because of the fact that the stimulus never says anything about unhappiness, just lack of happiness ( which I guess could technically be mediocrity).

After that, A I guess just looks like a stronger answer choice... :hmm: .
 BethRibet
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: Oct 17, 2012
|
#9956
Hi netherlands,

It's not really crucial for analyzing this question, but in the answer choices, I would likely say yes, unhappiness could likely still be considered a rogue element, if we treat it as an extension of happiness (negated).

A stronger way however to get to the right answer is to focus on what information is missing, that ties the conclusion to the premise(s). Because money only comes up in the conclusion, as Steve noted, we know we need to tie it to the premises. The reason given for not choosing money over health is that health is required for happiness. So for the conclusion -- not to choose money over health -- to follow, we need to assume that happiness is a great priority, or at least greater than money, such that money would not be enough reason to miss out on it. A captures that assumption -- it basically amounts to -- only pursue money if it won't preclude happiness.

Hope this helps!

Beth
 jessamynlockard
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: Jan 15, 2018
|
#45966
How should we diagram answer A, especially mechanically?

money should be acquired :arrow: happiness obtainable

rephrased "only if happiness is obtainable, should money be acquired."
 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
|
#46360
Hi Jessamyn,

Yes, that's correct. The stimulus gives us that we should never sacrifice health to acquire money
(Health :arrow: AM),
because without health, happiness is not obtainable
(Health :arrow: HO).
This means we have to link either
HO :arrow: AM,
or the contrapositive
AM :arrow: HO,
as answer choice (A) is written.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.