Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S2 · Q6 Therapists who treat violent criminals

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

Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients’ right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes.

Conclusion

Therapists who deal with violent criminals can't simultaneously respect their clients' right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of future victims.

Evidence

Reporting a client's unreported crimes would violate the client's trust that what they say to their therapist is confidential.

And failing to report a client's unreported crimes would leave the client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.

Evaluate

The conclusion is very harshly worded. It's saying that X is impossible, so to prove this dude wrong, we'd only need to come up with one instance in which X is possible.

Can we think of a scenario in which a therapist who treats violent criminals could manage to both respect the client's right to confidentiality while also showing real concern for potential future victims, were that client to remain out of prison.

The premises are framed as an Binary.

The therapist either reports the violent crimes she learns about from her client or she remains silent about them (doesn't report them).

The author thinks that In Either Case, the therapist has failed to do one of the two things that supposedly can never co-exist. We would need to think of way where in one of those two words, the therapist could still manage to do both things.

When a therapist does report the crimes of their client, could they still be respecting confidentiality and also looking out for future victims? They're definitely looking out for future victims, but it's hard to say they're respecting confidentiality. If you tell the cops what you know, you have failed to keep what you know confidential.

When a therapist does not report the crimes of their client, could they still be respecting confidentiality and also looking out for future victims? They're definitely respecting confidentiality. Could they still be looking out for future victims? Maybe. Maybe they don't consider their client dangerous to future victims? Their violent crime was a crime of passion, not a symptom of a dangerous person?

Goal

Let's find an answer that helps us argue that a therapist could simultaneously keep a client's crimes a secret while still showing proper concern for potential future victims, were that client to remain out of prison.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

Most therapists who treat violent
No Impact
The backstory behind why therapists would end up working with a violent criminal is irrelevant to our assessment of whether it's possible to keep the client's confessions a secret while still being duly concerned for the welfare of future victims.
13% picked this
Criminals are no more likely
Irrelevant Distinction: in/out of prison
A comparison between how common it is for criminals in prison vs. out of prison to receive therapy is irrelevant to our assessment of whether it's possible to keep the client's confessions a secret while still being duly concerned for the welfare of future victims.
4% picked this
Victims of future violent crimes
Out of Scope: victims' confidentiality
This discussion is about whether or not it's possible for a therapist to keep a violent criminal's confessions a secret while still being duly concerned for the welfare of future victims Whether or not future victims are also entitled to confidentiality in therapy has nothing to do with that discussion. This answer also says tells us something that common sense would already tell us (naturally, they would have a right to confidentiality -- why wouldn't a victim of a violent crime have a right to confidentiality in therapy?), so it isn't a new, impactful idea like what we're looking for.
2% picked this
The right of victims of
Out of Scope: compensation
This discussion is about whether or not it's possible for a therapist to keep a violent criminal's confessions a secret while still being duly concerned for the welfare of future victims Whether or not victims of violent crimes are entitled to monetary compensation has nothing to do with that discussion.
6% picked this
Correct
A therapist who has gained
Why this is right
This gives us a potential way to argue that it's possible for a therapist to keep a violent criminal's confessions a secret while still being duly concerned for the welfare of future victims A therapist might keep the client's unreported crimes a secret, thereby maintaining confidentiality. But the therapist could simultaneously be showing sincere concern for the potential of future victims by persuading their client not to commit any future crimes. If the client isn't dangerous going forward, then keeping their checkered past a secret isn't endangering people. Thus, it is possible for a therapist to balance respect for confidentiality and concern for potential future victims.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% 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