Sociologist: The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented because it rests on the assumption that human beings are unselfish—a seemingly false assumption. The welfare state is feasible only if wage earners are prepared to have their hard-earned funds used to help others in greater need, and that requires an unselfish attitude. But people innately seek their own well-being, especially when the interests of others threaten it.
P: The welfare state is feasible only if wage earners are prepared to have their hard-earned funds used to help others in greater need, and that requires an unselfish attitude.
P: But people innately seek their own well-being, especially when the interests of others threaten it.
P: It rests on the assumption that human beings are unselfish
P: A seemingly false assumption
C: The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented.
Diagram: Welfare State --> Successfully implemented
W.S. Feasible --> Earned money goes to others --> need to be unselfish
Need to be unselfish --> Earned money goes to other --> W.S. Feasible
-- so if it isn't feasible, how can it be successfully implemented? It can't!
This question is very heavy with Lawgic (logic), but that doesn't make it impossible to solve. In fact, this is a great question to help you learn premises and conclusions. As you can see, there is a ton of information, but being able to parse it quickly can net an easy answer. Always keep in mind what you are trying to prove. If you have to ask yourself "why do I need to believe this", it is either a conclusion or the conclusion of the argument; in this same vein, if something gives support to an argument, that is a premise. You can also use the because/therefore method. If you say because X therefore Y, the therefore Y is the conclusion, and the because X is the premise. Knowing this, let's dive into the answers, because we know where everything stands.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the sociologist’s argument?
(A) The welfare state will not work. -- Perfect! Every premise points to this and it is, indeed, our conclusion. As noted above, if something isn't feasible, how can you implement it successfully? Yes, this isn't stated anywhere and you NEVER make assumptions. But this is a logical step to take in an argument. If you are told a project isn't feasible, unless there is some new development it cannot possibly be successful. One last note on this before I move on: We know what the conclusion is from the above. All we have to do is find the closest match to it. And this is it!
(B) The welfare state unfairly asks those who work hard to help those in greater need. -- This is a premise of the argument. Are we trying to prove that the system is unfair? Nope. We are trying to show how it won't work. Try the because/therefore method: Because the welfare state won't work, therefore the welfare state unfairly asks those who work hard to help those in greater need. WRONG!
(C) The assumption that human beings are unselfish is false. -- This is yet another premise. No premise points to this to support it. Where is the proof for this statement? If you point to the last sentence, let's break that down. If people care about their own well being, does that make them selfish? That is a dangerous assumption to make. But the biggest issue with (C) is that the other premises don't point to anything. They are just left in the paragraph. But because they are premises, they have to support something. So this can't be our conclusion.
(D) The interests of the less fortunate impinge on the interests of others. -- This is never stated anywhere. If you chose this, you are making an assumption about the intention of the author. But you can't do this!
(E) The welfare state relies on the generosity of wage earners. -- OK, but generosity is never stated anywhere. This has nothing to do with our argument and the premises because we talk about selfishness (which is not the same as generosity).