Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S2 · Q11 Some psychologists claim that, in theory

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Some psychologists claim that, in theory, the best way to understand another person would be through deep empathy, whereby one would gain a direct and complete grasp of that person’s motivations.

Conclusion (thus)

These psychologists are wrong. i.e. Deep empathy is not the best way to understand another person.

Intermediate Conclusion

Suppose they are right -- suppose that deep empathy, whereby you gain direct and complete grasp of someone else's motivations, is the best way to understand another person -- There would be no way at all to achieve understanding.

Evidence (since)

It's psychologically impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations.

But one can understand other people.

Evaluate

The author is attempting to refute a position by demonstrating that a logical implication of that position is wrong. It's kind of like arguing by a contrapositive. You say,

That sort of argument isn't flawed if we accept its two premises. Do we accept the two premises here?

.

The 1st premise seems to contain a shaky move. The author is thinking,

That seems to contain a flawed assumption that

I could say, Clearly that's an impossible plan. Does that then mean that Of course not.

Goal

The move to the final conclusion is logically valid (if we accept all the ingredients of the author's "implications of their logic" rebuttal), so we can really only complain about the move the author made to reach her intermediate conclusion, which is saying that the psychologists' position entails the notion that .

Essentially, this author is acting like

11.

The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it

  1. fails to adequately define the

    Never a Flaw

    Not only did the author adequately define "deep empathy", by saying it's gaining a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations, but this type of answer is never right on flaw. We're supposed to be complaining about bad logical moves. Answers that are demanding specific measurements / definitions / or names (of people alluded to) are always wrong. We're not fact-checking details.

    2% picked this

  2. assumes something that it later

    Not Internal Contradiction

    This alludes to one of the ten famous flaws, Internal Contradiction. Circular, Self-Contradiction, and Equivocation are the three famous flaws that show up a ton as answer choices but are almost never the real problem. Here, people may find this answer more tempting than usual, because the author is rebutting someone by pointing out a false implication of their position. When we hear ... Suppose X were true. That would also mean Y is true. But Y isn't true. So apparently X isn't true. ... it sounds like there were contradictory ideas there, but the author isn't contradicting herself by posing a hypothetical that she later decides must not be the actual case. The first two claims there, "Suppose X were true. That would also mean Y is true", were hypothetical claims. The last two are actual claims.

    26% picked this

  3. Correct

    confuses a theoretically best way

    Why this is right

    The author reasons that, "since it is psychologically impossible to [gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations], there's no way to achieve understanding." That's equivalent to saying, "since it's impossible to do [deep empathy], there's no way to achieve understanding." That's equivalent to saying, "since it's impossible to do [best way to understand], there's no way to achieve understanding." All of this ties back to the fact that this author is saying, "psychologists must be wrong that deep empathy is the best way to understand someone, since deep empathy is impossible." Just because it's impossible doesn't mean they're wrong to say "in theory, it would be the best way". Within the author's attempt to demonstrate their position is wrong by means of showing a false implication, the author is making a flawed move. She's saying, "if deep empathy were really the best way to do X, then there's no way to do X, since deep empathy is impossible." That is acting like this "best way" to do X is "the only way" to do X.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    69% picked this

  4. accepts a claim on mere

    Doesn't Accept

    When the author says "suppose they are right", she is not accepting the claim on mere authority. She is assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claim is true before ultimately declaring that it is false.

    2% picked this

  5. fails to consider that other

    Not an Objection

    Since this begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether this sounds like a good weakening objection, but if anything saying that "other psychologists disagree with these psychologists" would only strengthen the author's position.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free