Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT141 S3 P3 Q17 Explanation

Happiness and Wealth

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage A Research concerning happiness and wealth reveals a paradox: at any one time richer people report higher levels of happiness than poorer people in the same society report, and yet over time advanced societies have not grown happier as they have grown richer. Apparently, people are comparing their income with with actual income. Two phenomena—habituation and rivalry—push up the norm.

When our living standards increase, we love it initially but then we adjust and it makes little difference. For example, if we ask people with different incomes what income they consider sufficient, the “required income” correlates strongly with their actual income: a rise in actual income causes a roughly equivalent rise in on the absolute level of wages but rises if wages rapidly increase.

We do not have the same experience with other aspects of our lives. We do not foresee how we adjust to material possessions, so we the expense of leisure.

Now consider the phenomenon of rivalry. In a study conducted by Solnick and Hemenway, people were asked to choose between prices held constant:

A. You earn $50,000 a year while everyone $25,000;

B. You earn $100,000 a year while others

The majority chose the first. They were happy to be poorer, provided position improved.

And indeed, how people compare to their “reference group”—those most like them—is crucial for happiness. In East Germany, for example, living standards have soared since 1990, but the level of happiness has plummeted because people now than with people in other Soviet bloc countries.

Passage B Does the Solnick and Hemenway study mean that we care most about one-upmanship? Perhaps out of our primeval past comes the urge to demonstrate our superiority in order to help ensure mating prospects, keeping our genetic lines going. Still from having a bigger house than our neighbors.

This theory may sound good and is commonly heard, but it is not the explanation best supported by the evidence. Rather, the data show that earning more makes people happier because relative prosperity successful, that they have created value.

If two people feel equally successful, they will be equally happy even if their incomes differ greatly. Of course, people who earn more generally view themselves as successful. But it is the success—not the money per se—that provides the happiness. We use material wealth but that we are prosperous because we create value.

What scholars often portray as an ignoble tendency—wanting to have more than others—is really evidence of a desire to create value. Wanting to create value benefits that it also brings happiness.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
17.

The author of passage B would be most likely to regard the conclusion that the Solnick and Hemenway study points to the existence of

Answer choices

  1. Correct52% picked this

    ungenerous in its view of human nature and mistaken in its interpretation

    Why this is right

    The 2nd half is definitely what we wanted, but "ungenerous in its view of human nature" would give me pause. What view of human nature does the "phenomenon of rivalry" conclusion have? The first paragraph of Passage B gives us a few pieces of support: - we care the most about one-upmanship - we're still "programmed" by the genetic motivations of our primeval past - we have an urge to demonstrate our superiority - we get unexplainable pleasure from having a bigger house than our neighbors Those definitely aren't flattering traits. And meanwhile the author's interpretation of the S&H study is just that humans care about creating value, which sounds like a more noble aspect of human nature. Since we can point to a clear contrast in the more negative portrayal of human motivations for "phenomenon of rivalry" than the author's interpretation, it's supportable to say the other interpretation is less generous in its view of human nature.

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. 1st Half Mismatch16% picked this

    flattering in its implications about human nature but only weakly supported by

    Having just researched the first paragraph of passage B for the sake of (A), there's no way I want to sign off on saying that Passage A's hypothesis is flattering in its implications about human nature. - care most about one-upmanship - take pleasure in having a bigger house than our neighbors - need to demonstrate our superiority That sounds insufferable, not flattering.

  3. 2nd Half Mismatch16% picked this

    plausible in its account of human nature but based largely upon

    The author wouldn't characterize the evidence as "ambiguous" if she thinks her explanation is "best supported by the evidence". If evidence were ambiguous, you wouldn't be able to tell which interpretation is best supported. She actually says, "Rather, the data show that" (not a more tentative verb like might suggest that).

  4. 2nd Half Mismatch10% picked this

    unflattering in its implications about human nature but more or less valid in the conclusions

    We can be alright with the first half, for reasons summarized in (A) and (B), but the second half of this is contradicted by the author saying that her explanation (not the phenomenon of rivalry) is "best supported by the evidence".

  5. 2nd Half Contradicted6% picked this

    accurate concerning human nature and strongly supported by

    Let's not even worry about the first half being somewhat off, because the 2nd half is dead wrong. The author says that her explanation, not the phenomenon of rivalry, is "the explanation best supported by the evidence".

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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