Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q26 A member of the British Parliament

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A member of the British Parliament is reputed to have said, “The first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness.

Conclusion

The reform I propose is a good social reform.

Evidence (Since)

The reform I propose would make my constituents happy.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

Any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose.

Evidence

The first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness.

Evaluate

This argument draws two conclusions (the first indicated by the conclusion indicator So, the second indicated by the support indicator Since).

We could potentially weaken the argument by attacking either move.

The "So" conclusion is mangled interpretation of the initial rule stated. She said that the .

Our author then takes that to mean Any reform that makes even one person happy is achieving its purpose.

Hold the phone, there, author. We said "the FIRST purpose, not the only purpose". Maybe a reform could meet the first purpose but fail to meet the second/third/fourth purpose and therefore not qualify as good social reform.

More importantly, the standard was whether the sum total (the net effect) was an increase of happiness. It wasn't whether "at least one person's happiness increased".

After all, if a new reform increases the happiness of the richest 0.1% but lessens the happiness of the remaining 99.9% of the population, it hasn't increased the sum total of human happiness.

The conclusion drawn in the last sentence seems like valid logic, within the logically invalid world of the author. If we accept her flawed Intermediate Conclusion, that , then we'd accept that this author's reform meets the first purpose of good social reform.

But, naturally, we do not accept the author's Intermediate Conclusion.

Finally, there is a gap between "achieving the first purpose of good social reform" and assuming something therefore "is a good social reform".

Maybe you could meet the first purpose of something but still not be considered that thing.

Goal

There were several complaints there, so we have to stay flexible. The most likely objection I would be looking for is the wide gap between , which fails to consider that as one person's happiness goes up, there might be other people's happiness going down.

26.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument attributed to the member of Parliament?

  1. Different things make different people

    No Impact / Wishy-Washy

    A lot of Strengthen / Weaken answers have this type of trap answer that is so vague and muddled that we have no idea how it would impact the conversation: - things vary - things fluctuate - differences exist

    2% picked this

  2. The proposed reform would make

    Too Weak

    If the new reform increases happiness for some, while leaving everyone else neutral, then it succeeded in increasing the sum total of human happiness. In order for us to really have an objection, we need a case where a few people's increase in happiness is outweighed by more people's decrease in happiness, so that the net effect is a decrease in the sum total of happiness.

    22% picked this

  3. The proposed reform would affect

    Strengthens

    This rules out the potential objection that "even if it's increasing the happiness of some of your constituents, it might be decreasing other people's happiness so much that we end up with a reduction in the sum total of human happiness". According to this answer, this reform would result in an increase in the sum total of human happiness.

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    Increasing some people’s happiness might

    Why this is right

    This is phrased quite weakly ("might not"), but it points out the complaint we've been coming back to --- the initial rule was about the sum total of happiness, so we can't just consider that this new reform would make constituents happy. We have to weigh that against potential decreases in happiness happening to other people.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    68% picked this

  5. Good social reforms usually have

    Out of Scope: widespread support

    This argument isn't really concerned one way or the other with widespread support. The standard it's concerned with is just "does this reform increase the sum total of human happiness?" Those are not equivalent ideas. If a reform helps 100 people and doesn't affect the other 100 million people that live in a country, it could have increased the sum total of happiness even if it never had widespread support.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free