One should never sacrifice one’s health in order to acquire money, for without health, happiness is not obtainable.
Let’s talk of the passage, which is literally a line, as a whole rather than trying to find premise and conclusion.
So, how can we reword the passage:
Earn money but not at the cost of your health because health is a mandatory ingredient of happiness. The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
What should the assumption be talking of?
Assumption should link earning money with health. Quote:
(A) Money should be acquired only if its acquisition will not make happiness unobtainable.
When is the happiness unobtainable? -
When the health is being sacrificed to get moneySo, the option talks of acquiring money only when health is not sacrificed.
An assumption on which the argument stands.
Quote:
(B) In order to be happy one must have either money or health.
The option means that one can obtain happiness without health too. Only money can also get you happiness.
That’s not what the passage points to.
Quote:
(C) Health should be valued only as a precondition for happiness.
We are already aware that health is necessary for happiness.
But our assumption has to link money to health and happiness.
Quote:
(D) Being wealthy is, under certain conditions, conducive to unhappiness.
Being healthy is related to happiness.
Even if we take the above true, it just tells us that some wealthy people are unhappy. But it still does not link money to health and happiness.
Quote:
(E) Health is more conducive to happiness than wealth is.
This means that some wealthy person, may not be healthy, can still be happy, although their % could be very less.
But the argument states that health is a must for happiness.
Only A fits in.