Reading Comprehension

PT141 · S3 · P3 · Q17 Happiness and Wealth

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

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.

Topic

The relationship between wealth, happiness, and the importance of comparison and perceived success.

Framework

Answer / Explain (with a dash of Present Debate on how to interpret rivalry in happiness studies)

Main Point

Across both passages, the authors explore why increasing wealth doesn't necessarily make societies happier over time. The key explanation is that people adjust their expectations and compare themselves to others—either due to habituation, rivalry, or a desire to feel successful. (The Most Valuable Sentence is in Passage A, P1: and in Passage B, P2: )

P1 (A): Introduction of the Wealth-Happiness Paradox

We learn that richer people in a society tend to be happier than poorer people, but as societies get wealthier, they don't necessarily get happier overall. This is because as incomes rise, so do people’s expectations (income "norms"), due to getting used to new standards (habituation) and comparing themselves to others (rivalry).

P2 (A): How Habituation Works

Raising living standards feels great at first, but soon people get used to it, so it no longer makes a difference; people's definition of "enough" money moves up as their income does. Job satisfaction is more about increases in pay than about absolute pay.

P3 (A): Overvaluing Material Goods

People fail to realize how quickly they adjust to new material possessions, so they end up overemphasizing stuff and sacrificing leisure, thinking those material gains will make them happier than they actually will.

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 a "phenomenon of rivalry" (first sentence of the fourth paragraph of passage A) as

Correct
ungenerous in its view of
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.
54% picked this
flattering in its implications about
1st Half Mismatch
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.
16% picked this
plausible in its account of
2nd Half Mismatch
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).
16% picked this
unflattering in its implications about
2nd Half Mismatch
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".
9% picked this
accurate concerning human nature and
2nd Half Contradicted
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".
6% 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