Philosopher: The rational pursuit of happiness is quite different from always doing what one most strongly desires to do. This is because the rational pursuit of happiness must include consideration of long-term consequences, whereas our desires are usually focused on the short term. Moreover, desires are sometimes compulsions, and while ordinary desires result in at least momentary happiness when their goals are attained, compulsions strongly drive a person to pursue goals that offer no happiness even when reached.
Summary
The rational pursuit of happiness is different from doing what one strongly desires to do. The rational pursuit of happiness must include consideration of long-term consequences, whereas desires are usually focused on the short-term. Some desires are compulsions. While ordinary desires result in momentary happiness when their goals are attained, compulsions drive a person to pursue goals that offer no happiness even when reached.
Notable Valid Inferences
All desires result in happiness when their goals are reached.
A
The majority of people do not have compulsions.
Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what most people experience. It is possible that most people do not have compulsions.
B
Attaining the goal of any desire results in momentary happiness.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that some desires are compulsions, and compulsions result in no happiness. Therefore, it is impossible for any desire to result in momentary happiness.
C
Most people do not pursue happiness rationally.
Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what most people experience. It is possible that most people do not rationally pursue happiness.
D
Most people want more than their own personal happiness.
Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what most people experience. It is possible that most people desire more than personal happiness.
E
All actions have long-term consequences.
Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what actions have what consequences. We only know that rational pursuit of happiness requires considering long-term consequences.
A
It fails to state exactly what percentage of dogs neutered in early puppyhood experience improper bone development.
B
It fails to explain the connection between improper bone development and arthritis.
C
It fails to address the effects of neutering in middle or late puppyhood.
D
It fails to consider the possibility that the benefits of neutering a dog early might outweigh the risk of arthritis.
E
It fails to consider the possibility that dogs with properly developed bones can develop arthritis.
Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. People certainly should be free, within broad limits, to spend their money as they choose. On the other hand, candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms. Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate. The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear: _______.
Summary
The political scientist tells us about a dilemma regarding campaign spending. People should generally get to spend their money freely, but it’s also unfair that some candidates are able to far outspend others. The government should ensure that all candidates’ voices have a more equal chance to be heard. However, the government should not subsidize everyone’s expensive election campaigns.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
One strongly supported conclusion is that the government should intervene rather than allowing the unfair status quo to continue. Another is that the government should level the playing field by limiting campaign spending, which wouldn’t require subsidies.
A
only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
This is anti-supported. The political scientist says that the government should allow all voices an equal chance, and banning candidates who don’t have lots of money would do the opposite.
B
an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
This is strongly supported by the stimulus. The political scientist tells us that campaign finance discrepancies are unfair, and the government should ensure more equality. However, we shouldn’t subsidize campaigns, so the remaining option is spending limits.
C
government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The political scientist thinks that we should reduce the unfair spending advantage of some candidates over others, and paying for an equal portion of all campaigns would leave everyone just as unequal as ever.
D
all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
This is anti-supported. The political scientist claims that in general, people should be allowed to spend their money freely, with only certain “broad” limits. An extreme limitation like this would be totally at odds with that principle.
E
each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend
This claim is anti-supported. The political scientist’s point is that allowing total freedom in campaign spending results in an unfair advantage for some candidates, which we should be trying to fix, not allowing to go ahead.