Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically valuable; other things are

Question

Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically valuable; other things are valuable only insofar as they contribute to happiness. Some philosophers argue that the fact that we do not approve of a bad person’s being happy shows that we value happiness only when it is deserved. This supposedly shows that we find something besides happiness to be intrinsically valuable. But the happiness people deserve is determined by the amount of happiness they bring to others. Therefore, ______

Which one of the following most logically completes the final sentence of the essayist’s argument?

(A) the notion that people can be deserving of happiness is ultimately incoherent
(B) people do not actually value happiness as much as they think they do
(C) the judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness
(D) the only way to be assured of happiness is to bring happiness to those who have done something to deserve it
(E) a truly bad person cannot actually be very happy

ykaiim · Answer

Thanks SudiptoGmat for bringing such a delicacy :wink:

. Well, this was indeed tough for me and took me around 2 min to reach C. Let's see why C is correct: The given argument seems to be circular in reasoning and we need to find the CONCLUSION. Only happiness is intrinsically valuable and rest are factors contributing to it. Think of this statement as Statue of Liberty in NY. It was crafted from a big piece of stone of height say 10,000 ft. Now, the bay near to it, the Brooklyn bridge, the NY city, etc are just adding to its beauty. Now, coming back to the original question. Some philospers >>> bad ppl dont deserve happiness >>> so, something apart from happiness is of intrinsic value >>> amount of happiness is related with the happiness brought for others. (A) the notion that people can be deserving of happiness is ultimately incoherent Incorrect ] (B) people do not actually value happiness as much as they think they do Incorrect ] (C) the judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness Correct ] (D) the only way to be assured of happiness is to bring happiness to those who have done something to deserve it Incorrect ] (E) a truly bad person cannot actually be very happy Incorrect ]

kannn · Answer

I reached C by elimination. However, I am not sure how to justify the ans. Any help? Also, what is that C is trying to say?

gmatfighter12 · Answer

Here we want to find an argument against philosophers'

(C)A person that deserve to be happy is only way because of their contribution to the amount of happiness they bring others

deserved happiness = happiness to others

Nightmare007 · Answer

Hi, Can you please deduce the question. I am not able to find which one is the answer. 
I even find C, which most people said is correct, as wrong.

Thank you

GMATNinja · Answer

This is an LSAT question (PrepTest 38), and the OA is C.

The passage specifically states, "But the happiness people deserve is determined by the amount of happiness they bring to others." Thus, the judgment that a person deserves to be happy depends on the amount of happiness that he or she brings to others. In other words, the judgment that a person deserves to be happy is based on something involving happiness itself (happiness of others).

This is perfectly consistent with choice (C). Lance deserves to be happy.. based on what? Based on the fact that Lance makes other people happy. The judgment that Lance deserves to be happy can only be explained in terms of the happiness of others. (C) might seem a bit weird, but it fits with the information in the passage. There is nothing "incoherent" about this explanation, so (A) doesn't fit.

(C) is the best answer.

DharLog · Answer

It is like hapiness and deserve of happiness is defined through happiness - seemed like C to me from the beginning.

chiragthukral · Answer

Why isn't Choice B the answer?
It is given in the argument that People do value something besides Happiness to be intrinsically valuable.  GMATNinja

MBAB123 · Answer

Hey chiragthukral , 2 things to note here - 1. The argument/essayist never says that people find something to be intrinsically valuable. This is the line from the argument "This supposedly shows that we find something besides happiness to be intrinsically valuable". Notice the word supposedly . Also, the overall tone of the essayist is supportive of the fact the happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value. 2. Option B has nothing to with people valuing other things. It is just saying that the people don't value as much as they think they do? We have no idea about either of those things. Also introduction of another valuable thing (X) would not automatically reduce the value of another thing (Y). Hope this helps!

licrolicro · Answer

"Deserved happiness" is determined by how much happiness a person brings to others.

In other words, "deserving happiness" is not about some other intrinsic value (e.g., justice) but is itself derived from happiness (i.e., the happiness the person creates for others).

Vivek1707 · Answer

Another question which has conditional logic embedded but the answer doesnt completely depend on connecting the conditional statements

Lets evaluate

If x ----> y
If valuable ---> happiness
If we value happiness ---> deserved

Note
" Insofar " ---> means " to the extend " ---> this is  not  a conditional trigger
" Determined by " ---> again just means " depends on " --->  not  a conditional trigger

Now the next statement is that happiness people  DESERVE  depends on the happiness people bring to others
Lets look at the answer choices

A No,  incoherent  means  not clear  or difficult to understand. Nothing in the argument can be justified as such.

B No cannot be inferred that people value happiness less than they think.

C This is  correct  ---> As per the argument, we value happiness  only when  its deserved and 'deserved' is dependent on the amount of happiness you bring to others. So thats like saying if you bring more happiness to others you ll be more happy. So can be said that the happiness someone deserves is to be understood in terms of the happiness (brought to others) ----> C is clearly inferrable 
 
D The only way ---> conditional logic for " The only  x .... y " ---> if x then y

Meaning If you are assured of happiness ---> you bring happiness to those who've done something to deserve it. Incorrect, notice that passage talks about brining happiness to 'others' and not to those who deserve it. The answer choices mixes up ideas.

E Extreme answer, not inferrable

Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically valuable; other things are

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically valuable; other things are

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards