1st premise: intrinsically valuable—-> it’s happiness 2nd: other things are valuable—-> they must contribute to happiness

Opposing view: some philosophers say that the fact that we don’t like it when bad people are happy means we value something other than happiness.

Rebuttal: but whether someone deserves to be happy depends on how much happiness they bring to other people.

After reading: this guy is all about happiness and is convinced that anything valuable can be understood only in terms of happiness. He doesn’t buy the philosophers argument and the entire argument seems to be geared toward the idea that even when people think about whether one deserves to be happy, they are thinking in terms of happiness.

Answers: A: the author thinks it’s possible to deserves happiness... it’s just conditioned on the happiness you bring to others.

B: there is zero support for this to be the authors conclusion. He’s all about the idea that value= happiness

C: this is right on the money. The entire argument seems to be geared toward this position.

D: he doesn’t talk about what will surely result in happiness unless you’re speaking in terms of value. And then the answer talks about bringing happiness to those who deserve it... the author only talks about bringing happiness to others. he doesn’t specify who those others are. They could be shitty people.

E: this is just LSAC trolls putting a bunch of key words in an answer and hoping you’ll bite. First of all, he doesn’t talk about who’s happy and who’s not. And it’s a pretty weak answer “cannot be very happy”... okay... but that doesn’t dispute the claim made by the philosopher and it has nothing to do with what the author is saying. This answer is pretty garbage.