Q18 - It is said that people

[jrany12]

Hi,
In this question, I chose D, but I could see how B could be true. Could you please clearly explain why B is a necessary assumption? When you negate the answer choice, does it become: People who ARE dissatisfied with themselves are less likely than others to pursue personal excellence? Or do you have to negate the "less likely" part as well? Do you have any tips for negating sentences correctly? Thanks!!

[cyruswhittaker]

In order to negate choice B, you do not change the "not dissatisfied" part. Instead, you would think of adding "It is not true that...(the original sentence in B follows)." Then, to more easily understand this sentence, we could add "not" before "less likely." But you would need to leave the "people who are not..." part alone. You don't want to change the subject when forming a negation.

Now, approaching choice (B) from this angle, it is clear that negating it seriously attacks the argument. Afterall, if people who are not dissatisfied with themselves (and hence those who accept themselves as they are) are not any less likely to purse personal excellence, then the argument's rationale has no foundation.

In order to see how it breaks down the argument's rational consider the structure. As the only support, the argument claims that "pursuing personal excellence" is a necessary condition to be "genuinely happy," thus assuming that those who are not dissatisfied will be less likely to pursue excellence, which would lead to less genuinely happy people. This is essentially what choice (B) is saying. So, it's a "necessary assumption" because without this assumption, the argument would not hold.

Choice (D) is out of scope. What is "justified in feeling content" is not discussed or referenced to in the argument.

[jrany12]

Thanks so much for the explanation!! I clearly see now how it's a necessary assumption.

[clarafok]

hello

i still don't understand why B is the answer.

so the argument says that instead of being dissatisfied, people should accept themselves as who they are. why is it that 'people who are not dissatisfied' is the same as 'people who accept themselves as who they are'?

and why is A wrong?

thanks in advance!

[itzakadoozie412]

Why should we not negate the "People who are NOT dissatisfied" part to "People who ARE dissatisfied"?
When I negate answer choice (B) to "People who ARE dissatisfied with themselves are NOT any less likely than others to pursue personal excellence", this seems to destroy the conclusion...
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...

[bbirdwell]

That doesn't actually apply to the conclusion unless you incorrectly apply it from the wrong side of the conditional statements involved (sufficient to necessary instead of vice versa).

Bottom line, you've negated it twice, which is incorrect. Just change one part.

Here's how I think about this one problem.

The principle involved:
not pursue excellence AND not willing to change --> not happy

contrapose:
happy --> pursue excellence OR willing to change

conclusion:
being satisfied (accepting instead of being dissatisfied) = WRONG

Considering structure without getting involved in the details, we can see that "satisfaction" came out of nowhere -- it's only in the conclusion, not in the evidence. There must be an assumption involved! That assumption must connect this idea of "satisfaction" to the argument, meaning it must be connected to either "pursuing excellence" or "willingness to change" in order to say something about happiness.

Making sense?

Therefore our correct answer must contain some combination of "satisfaction/dissatisfaction" + either "excellence" or "willingness to change."

(B) and (D) are the only ones that even come close. (D) is out because "justification" is never mentioned in the argument and is therefore out of scope. Ruthlessly eliminate out of scope answers for necessary assumption questions as you practice, and you'll soon learn patterns and see things differently, making fewer mistakes and learning more from the ones you do make.

I hope that's helpful. I like to get answers right without thinking too hard, so I do what I can to make things easy for myself, like looking at structure first and being a smart and aggressive eliminator. My advice is to go into excruciating detail only as a last resort. With the right kind of practice, this is essentially never.

#officialexplanation

[fshek030]

That doesn't actually apply to the conclusion unless you incorrectly apply it from the wrong side of the conditional statements involved (sufficient to necessary instead of vice versa).

Bottom line, you've negated it twice, which is incorrect. Just change one part.

Here's how I think about this one problem.

The principle involved:
not pursue excellence AND not willing to change --> not happy

contrapose:
happy --> pursue excellence OR willing to change

conclusion:
being satisfied (accepting instead of being dissatisfied) = WRONG

Considering structure without getting involved in the details, we can see that "satisfaction" came out of nowhere -- it's only in the conclusion, not in the evidence. There must be an assumption involved! That assumption must connect this idea of "satisfaction" to the argument, meaning it must be connected to either "pursuing excellence" or "willingness to change" in order to say something about happiness.

Making sense?

Therefore our correct answer must contain some combination of "satisfaction/dissatisfaction" + either "excellence" or "willingness to change."

(B) and (D) are the only ones that even come close. (D) is out because "justification" is never mentioned in the argument and is therefore out of scope. Ruthlessly eliminate out of scope answers for necessary assumption questions as you practice, and you'll soon learn patterns and see things differently, making fewer mistakes and learning more from the ones you do make.

I hope that's helpful. I like to get answers right without thinking too hard, so I do what I can to make things easy for myself, like looking at structure first and being a smart and aggressive eliminator. My advice is to go into excruciating detail only as a last resort. With the right kind of practice, this is essentially never.

Wow. You made this question so...so... simple.

[bbirdwell]

Thank you! I'm glad it helped! Always attempt to simplify before getting tangled up in a net of useless details!

[Giovanni.Nagao]

Need help!!! : )

I normally don’t have problems with necessary assumption questions but I recently tackled question 18 on the 3rd section of PT 36 and I need help. I got the answer right, partly because I felt confident in eliminating the other four answer choices and also because B) had the two elements I anticipated the correct answer choice having ... on the real test I would have marked B) and moved on but since I was studying I wanted to confirm the rationale behind B) before moving on ... this is when the sh*t hit the fan for me ... given my current understand of the question I don’t see why B) is necessary and I would like your help in correcting that ...

here’s where I currently stand ...

According to the stimulus, if a person is genuinely happy, we know that they either are pursuing personal excellence or are willing to undergo personal change

If we negate one of the necessary conditions in the conditional relationship above than we can always fall back on the other necessary condition ... the negation of answer choice B) only weakens the first necessary condition, and leaves the second necessary condition untouched ... so, basically I’m stuck because I believe that even if people who are dissatisfied with themselves are less likely than others to pursue personal excellence, they may still be willingly to undergo personal change and hence the possibility of genuine happiness is not necessarily precluded ...where am I going wrong : )

[shaynfernandez]

Noah and Brian,

I think the reason for my confusion as well as some others is because you each diagrammed the supporting premise differently. I may be wrong.

I will diagrams as:
S= satisfied
H= happiness
P= pursue personal excellence
W= willing to change

I think the original sentence translates to ""if a person is genuinely happy, we know that they are pursuing personal excellence and are willing to undergo personal change." The contrapositive would be:

"If either not pursuing personal excellence or not willing to undergo personal changem then not genuinely happy."

Noah:
H--> W AND P
Contrapositive: ~W OR ~P --> ~H

Requiring the assumption: P and W--> ~S
Or contrapositive: S--> ~P or ~W

Brian:
~P AND ~W --> ~H
Contrapositive: H--> P OR W

The principle involved:
not pursue excellence AND not willing to change --> not happy

contrapose:
happy --> pursue excellence OR willing to change

conclusion:
being satisfied (accepting instead of being dissatisfied) = WRONG

I may be missing something big here.

But with Brian's diagram B would be incorrect and D would be correct (if disregarding the word 'justified' of course).

B) I believe it to be diagrammed as S--> (less likely) P. But wouldn't that leave willingness still open as an option? But as Brian has it we would need to know both pursue and willingness would be out

While
D) would be: some P --> S

While Noah's would be the opposite

B) would connect by: (H --> P and W --> dissatisfied)
As the contrapositive: S--> ~P or ~W--> ~H

While Noah's diagram would lead to the correct chain of
Satisfied --> pursue personal ex -->~happy

But leaving willingness still open which is necessary

...right?

[noah]

Thanks for your post, Shayn - it's become quite a tangled thread. I've deleted a bunch of posts to clean it up. Here's my explanation:

The conclusion is that's it's a bad idea for folks to accept themselves if the goal is a happy society.

So: happy --> NOT accept,
or, accept --> NOT happy

Why? Because IF you are not pursuing excellence AND you are not willing to change, THEN you will be NOT happy.

So: NOT purs. exc AND NOT will. change --> NOT happy
or, Happy --> Purs. exc. OR will. change

When we face an assumption argument with a conditional conclusion and we want to use a formal approach (which, Brian deftly avoids above), we want to "stretch" the conclusion and try to fill in the pieces with the premises. This gives us:

accept ???? NOT purs. exc AND NOT will. change --> NOT happy.

The missing link is represented by the questions mark. We need accepting yourself to mean not pursuing excellence and not willing to change. (B) gives us part of that, a necessary part. We need to assume that people that are not dissatisfied (which includes those that accept themselves) are less likely to pursue personal excellence. It's OK that the answer doesn't refer to the not willing to change, because we only need a necc. assumption, not something that will make the entire argument work.

(A) links change and happiness, which is already connected in some way in the premise. We still don't have a connection to acceptance.

(C) introduces confidence, out of scope.

(D) is about whether folks are justified in their feelings. Out of scope.

(E) introduces pain. Out of scope, and painful.

I hope that helps, but no doubt there are more questions about this tough problem!

[noah]

here’s where I currently stand ...

According to the stimulus, if a person is genuinely happy, we know that they either are pursuing personal excellence or are willing to undergo personal change

If we negate one of the necessary conditions in the conditional relationship above than we can always fall back on the other necessary condition ... the negation of answer choice B) only weakens the first necessary condition, and leaves the second necessary condition untouched ... so, basically I’m stuck because I believe that even if people who are dissatisfied with themselves are less likely than others to pursue personal excellence, they may still be willingly to undergo personal change and hence the possibility of genuine happiness is not necessarily precluded ...where am I going wrong : )

If you negate (B), you don't learn that dissatisfied people are less likely to pursue personal excellence, you learn that satisfied people are not less likely (meaning just as likely) to pursue personal excellence.

You only negate one part of the answer.

I hope that helps.

[noah]

I cleaned up some earlier posts, but I want to show you that Brian is correct (and one of my earlier posts was wrong):

Brian:
~P AND ~W --> ~H
Contrapositive: H--> P OR W

B) I believe it to be diagrammed as S--> (less likely) P. But wouldn't that leave willingness still open as an option? But as Brian has it we would need to know both pursue and willingness would be out

I agree that (B) is S --> (less likely) P, and for us to conclude that acceptance, or "S" leads to ~ H, we need S to lead to not P, which is what (B) gives us.

S doesn't have to lead to both ~ P and ~ W, since this is a necessary assumption question.

That clear it up?

[WaltGrace1983]

This one used to give me problems but I am trying to streamline my process. Let me know if there is something I messed up! One thing that helps is to realize that (acceptance) is the same thing as ~(dissatisfied), at least according to this argument.

Happy → Pursue (Excellence) or (Change)
→
If you want to be happy, acceptance = bad principle

Assumption: Accepting oneself leads one to NOT pursue (Excellence) and NOT pursue (Change). In other words, (Acceptance → ~E & ~C)

(A) We know that if one is happy then one is willing to pursue (change) or (excellence) but we don't really know anything about if willing to pursue (change). Eliminate.

(B) This basically says that people who accept themselves are less likely to pursue excellence. This must be true because the argument is assuming that if one accepts oneself, then one absolutely will not pursue (excellence) or (change). Thus, this would mean that they are "less likely than others" to do so...they won't do so altogether!

(C) "Genuine confidence?" Out of scope.

(D) We know nothing about justification.

(E) "Painful to obtain?" Out of scope.

[Wackyjacky]

Hi,
I am having a real issue with this answer choice and I don't see my issue addressed in this thread yet.

As it was pointed out being genuinely happy has two necessary conditions:

1- pursuing personal excellence
2- willingness to change

Some had found it problematic that B' does not address the second necessary condition and it was previously pointed out that because this is a necessary assumption question a breach of any ONE of the conditions is enough to ensure the ultimate goal of being genuinely happy will not be achieved.

My issue lies in the fact that precisely because it is a necessary assumption and the breach of any ONE of the conditions would suffice in ensuring genuine happiness is not achieved we CANNOT be sure the assumption was that people who are not dissatisfied will breach condition number one anymore than maybe the assumption was there will be a breach of condition number two!

In other words, although I agree obviously we do not know the author was assuming there would be a breach of both necessary conditions we only know there would be a breach of one. BUT we do not know in any way whatsoever WHICH One of the necessary conditions the author believes will be breached as a result of this person not being dissatisfied with their abilities. Therefore B would be a sufficient assumption but not necessary.

I know the other answer choices are obviously wrong but I have never seen a nec assumption question that was not absolutely necessary. That's why this question really bothers me. If someone can explain me anything I missed or where I went wrong I would truly, truly appreciate it.

Thanks!

[gaheexlee]

Hi,
I am having a real issue with this answer choice and I don't see my issue addressed in this thread yet.

As it was pointed out being genuinely happy has two necessary conditions:

1- pursuing personal excellence
2- willingness to change

Hey, I think the short answer to your question may be that being happy does not require that you have two necessary conditions.

The stimulus said "not happy if not pursuing and unwilling" right?
So that diagrams as ~Pursuing and ~Unwilling -> ~Happy

But the contrapositive of that changes the "and" to "or" so we have:
Happy -> Pursuing OR Unwilling.

So you see, being happy can have just one necessary condition. You don't absolutely need to have both "pursuing" and "unwilling" to have "happy."

[Wackyjacky]

gaheexlee,

Thanks for pointing that out. I must have missed the word IF. For some reason I diagrammed it as if it said H - ONLY if P and C etc.

Thanks!

[daijob]

Can "less" be treated like negation of something?
I have:
P: ~pursue excellence and ~undergo change=>~happy
contrapositive: happy=>P.E or U.C.
C: happy=>dissatisfy

AnswerB: ~dissatisfy=>~P.E.
So I negated P.E. even though it says "less likely" and connected it to the contrapositive of the premises.
But I wonder whether it can be treated as negation...

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post daijob. “Less” is not a true negation; it isn’t exactly true according to B that

satisfied --> ~pursue excellence.

Rather, an exact translation of B would be

satisfied -->less likely to pursue excellence.

This still works with the argument. The conclusion doesn’t require that absolutely no one pursues excellence. Rather, it requires that we abide by principles that promote the goal of pursuing excellence.

[daijob]

Hi, thank you for your reply,
But actually I'm still confused,,,
So because the conclusion is conditional statement, we do not have to have absolute negation, but "less" is enough assumption to have the conclusion?