Please submit your concern

Explanation:

Given the elements discussed in the passage, identifying the conclusion can be quite tricky, perhaps even causing inextricable confusion. A way around this would be to trace the dominant ideas discussed here - at the centre of the discussion lies the question: "What qualifies as a good life?". The author presents two perspectives that have been considered so far - hedonic [happiness] and eudaimonic [purpose]. A third way to view this question is then presented - a standpoint with "psychological richness" at its core. The author elaborates on this concept and emphasises that positive and negative experiences can be labelled as psychologically rich. He then builds on this idea, conveying that even bad experiences can help a person lead a good life [this appears to be the primary conclusion mainly because it ties in with the question that the author poses at the beginning of the discussion]. Option C correctly presents this.

Option A:

The statement here is assertive - a better version would be: "A psychologically rich life can/could be a good life." Furthermore, this is not necessarily the primary conclusion since it misses out on a portion of the discussion presented towards the end.

Option B:

While true, the author uses this point to answer the question posed at the beginning; thus, this is an ancillary idea and not the primary conclusion.

Option D:

The author presents a third alternative; however, he doesn't seek to merely underline that "a good life should not be seen in binary terms." [there is more to the passage than this - the author builds on the idea of psychological richness]

Option E:

This is not implied in the passage and, thus, can be rejected.