The desire for praise is the desire to obtain, as a sign that one is good, the favorable opinions of others. But beca...

Sangwook on January 20, 2015

Help

1st premise: desire for praise = desire to obtain the favorable opinions of others. 2nd premise: Merit Praise(MP) ===> Desire to Help Others motivated Actions Conclusion: Desire for Praise (motivated) Aids ===>Not Deserve Praise that Aid. Now, I don't clearly understand why (A) is the answer. Isn't (B) also possible answer since the negation of (B) {"Some action is worthy of praise if it is motivated solely by a desire for praise."} may also weaken the conclusion on the stimulus???? Help me, please.😿

2 Replies

Melody on January 21, 2015

This is a strengthen with sufficient premise question. Remember that a sufficient premise is sufficient for a conclusion, if and only if the existence of the premise guarantees or brings about the existence of the conclusion. Therefore, we need to find the premise that 100% guarantees the conclusion. The way you want to attack these answer choices is two-pronged. Ask yourself, does it strengthen? If it doesn't, then cross it out and continue to the next answer choice. If it does strengthen, however, then ask yourself whether or not the premise guarantees the conclusion.

Conclusion: "one who aids others primarily out of a desire for praise does not deserve praise for that aid."

Why? Because the desire for praise is the desire to obtain, as a sign that one is good, the favorable opinions of others; and people merit praise only for those actions motivated by a desire to help others.

So, the issue here is that we are never told that the desire for praise and the desire to help others are mutually exclusive. SO, why can't one who has the desire for praise also have the desire to help others?

Answer choice (A): "An action that is motivated by a desire for the favorable opinion of others cannot also be motivated by a desire to help others."

Does (A) strengthen? Yes.

Answer choice (A) addresses the same issue as mentioned above. (A) tells us that these two desires are--in fact--mutually exclusive, and so it strengthens the conclusion that those who primarily have a desire for praise do not deserve praise for that aid since they do not have a desire to help others.

Does this premise guarantee the conclusion? Yes.

If these two desires are mutually exclusive, then the moment one has a desire for praise, they cannot have a desire to help others. And we know that people merit praise only for those actions motivated by a desire to help others:

MP ==> DHO
not DHO ==> not MP

As we see from the contrapositive, if we do not have the desire to help others, then we do not merit praise. Thus, answer choice (A) both strengthens and guarantees the conclusion of the argument above.

Since this is a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise (because of the use of the word "enables" which means "could allow," as opposed to "depends upon"), there is no need to look at the negations of the answer choices.

Answer choice (B): "No action is worthy of praise if it is motivated solely by a desire for praise."

(B): MSDFP ==> not MP
MP ==> not MSDFP

Does this answer choice strengthen? No.

We are concluding that one who aids others PRIMARILY out of a desire for praise, does not deserve praise for that aid. Answer choice (B) is irrelevant because it deals with one who is motivated SOLELY by a desire for praise. This does not help us with our conclusion.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Sangwook on January 22, 2015

Thanks a lot!!^^