A member of the British Parliament

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact / Wishy-Washy2% picked this

   Different things make different people

   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%
2. B

   Too Weak23% picked this

   The proposed reform would make a few people happy, but would not increase the happiness

   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.

   23%
3. C

   Strengthens7% picked this

   The proposed reform would affect only the member of Parliament’s constituents and would

   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%
4. D

   Correct67% picked this

   Increasing some people’s happiness might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others

   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.

   67%
5. E

   Out of Scope: widespread support1% picked this

   Good social reforms usually have widespread

   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%