Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S2 · Q17 One should never sacrifice

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

One should never sacrifice one's health in order to acquire money, for without health, happiness is not obtainable.

Conclusion

One should never sacrifice one's health in order to acquire money.

Evidence (for)

Without health, happiness is not obtainable.

Evaluate

One of the hardest missing links for students to hear is the "missing Should-rule".

example: Washing your clothes with yogurt will make them smell funny. Thus, you shouldn't wash your clothes with yogurt.

What is the assumption / the missing link? You shouldn't do something that will make your clothes smell funny.

Any time an author says, , we're missing the idea of "you shouldn't do something that leads to Y".

Here the author was saying,

So we're missing the should-rule that .

Goal

Look for something like "You shouldn't do something that makes happiness unobtainable."

We can think of the idea "should" in the conclusion as a New Concept that must be in the correct answer. We can't derive a should-claim without a should-rule, and the premise doesn't provide a should-rule. It just descriptively tells us that without health you can't have happiness.

17.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Correct

    Money should be acquired only

    Why this is right

    This is a tricky re-wording of what we were after. We wanted to hear, "You shouldn't do something that would make happiness unobtainable." This is saying, "Money is only worth acquiring if means that happiness is still obtainable", which can be re-worded into, "If acquiring money would make happiness unobtainable, you shouldn't do it." Sacrificing one's health to attain money would mean making happiness unobtainable. From the claims PREM: sacrificing health would make happiness unobtainable + (A): if it would make happiness unobtainable, you shouldn't do it to acquire money we can't derive the claim that CONC: you should never sacrifice health in order to acquire money.

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

    62% picked this

  2. In order to be happy

    Reversal

    The fact that this isn't a should-rule would mean it isn't worth reading. We need some sort of should-rule in order to derive the should-claim in the Conclusion. This is weirdly just watering down a premise. The premise said that happiness requires health: happiness → health And this says "Well ... happiness requires health, or the next best thing, money!" happiness → money or health So if anything this is weakening the argument.

    2% picked this

  3. Health should be valued only

    Too Strong

    This is a should-rule, so it's worth reading. But it would only help us conclude what should / shouldn't be valued about health. The conclusion is about what should / shouldn't be done in the attempt to acquire money. We already knew that health was a precondition for happiness, because the premise tells us that happiness requires health. This answer just adds that "this is the only reason to value health." There's no way we could derive any claim about acquiring money based on the claims, "Happiness requires health, and that's the only reason to value health."

    5% picked this

  4. Being wealthy is, under certain

    Out of Scope

    The fact that this isn't a should-rule would mean it isn't worth reading. From the claims PREM: happiness requires health + (D): wealth is sometimes conducive to unhappiness we can't derive the strong claim that CONC: you should never sacrifice health in order to acquire money.

    6% picked this

  5. Health is more conducive to

    Out of Scope

    The fact that this isn't a should-rule would mean it isn't worth reading. From the claims PREM: happiness requires health + (E): health is more conducive to happiness than wealth we can't derive the strong claim that CONC: you should never sacrifice health in order to acquire money.

    24% 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