- Posts: 12
- Joined: May 18, 2015
The question is as follows:
- We removed the text due to LSAC copyright considerations, but here is the question identification information for easy reference:
Question: June 1998, LR2, #24
Topic: Happiness and pets
I chose (A) because the premise says that "most people who have pets are less happy than most people who do not" so I took that to mean that some people are happier than people who do not have pets, which is answer choice (A). This choice weakens the conclusion because the conclusion says that "any person who wants to be as happy as possible would do well to consider not having a pet"
Doesn't the "some" in answer choice (A) weaken a statement that applies to the happiness of "any person." Since at least one person with a pet is happier than most people who don't have pets, doesn't this weaken the conclusion?
For choice (D), I'm having a hard time seeing why it's correct. The conclusion refers to being as happy as possible, and choice (D) focuses on people who feel happier because they have pets; but couldn't these same people feel even happier than they feel now (with the pet)? So how would choice (D) weaken the argument?
I'm lost, can anyone lend some guidance.
Thanks in advance