Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q24 Psychologist: Some psychologists mistakenly

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

Psychologist: Some psychologists mistakenly argue that because dreams result from electrical discharges in the brain, they must be understood purely in terms of their physiological function.

Main Conclusion (mistakenly - opinion)

Psychologists mistakenly argue that dreams must be understood purely in terms of their physiological content (because they result from electrical discharges).

i.e., dreams can be understood in non-physiological terms as well

Intermediate Conclusion

Electrical discharges cannot completely explain the phenomenon of dreaming.

Evidence (since)

Dream content varies enormously.

Evaluate

We're being asked about a claim that is prefaced by since, so it's a guarantee that it's performing the role of supporting the other half of its sentence. (FABS = for, after all, because, since = Support Indicators)

Goal

Let's look for something like Premise / Support / Evidence for the claim that .

If they're getting mean, we may need to worry about whether that final claim is the main conclusion or just an intermediate one, but we won't worry about that until we see it.

24.

The claim that dream content varies enormously plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. It is used to support

    Opposite

    It is used to support the author's conclusion, not the psychologists' conclusion. The "But" pivot signals that we have switched from talking about the psychologists ("They conclude") and are now hearing the author's thoughts. The author is using this premise as part of his attempt to undermine the anti-Freudian psychologists.

    2% picked this

  2. It is used to support

    Too Strong: explicitly stated

    According to this answer choice, somewhere in this paragraph we read, it says: a fully satisfactory account of dreams must allow for the possibility of their revealing significant information about the dreamer. We don't have anything like that. The closest we have is electrical discharges are not a fully satisfactory account of dreams because they don't explain the fact that dream content varies a ton.

    3% picked this

  3. It is used to suggest

    Bad Conclusion Match

    In reality, it is used to suggest that "electrical discharges cannot completely explain the phenomenon of dreaming", which is used to suggest that "psychologists are mistaken to argue that dreams must be understood purely in terms of their physiological function". Freud is not part of the author's conclusion (or evidence). He's sort of an just an aside within this paragraph. If anything, though, we think that our author is probably in sympathetic agreement with Freud.

    12% picked this

  4. It is used to illustrate

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: difficulty Bad Conclusion Match It isn't being used to say that a complete explanation will be difficult. It is just used to say that the psychologists' "electrical discharges" explanation is not complete.

    23% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is used to undermine

    Why this is right

    This might not be what we predicted, but it seems like we can make it work. What is a claim that some psychologists use to argue against a view of Freud's? They argue, because dreams result from electrical discharges, dreams reveal nothing about the character of the dreamer. The author is saying, "if it's all just electrical discharges, then why does the content of the dream vary so much from person to person (and from dream to dream)? Even if dreams are caused by electrical discharges, the way they manifest uniquely in different people suggests that dreams do reveal something about the character of the dreamer." It seems like the claim the psychologists use to argue against Freud would be, "dreams must be understood purely in terms of physiological function", and the author is using this claim we're being asked about to undermine that claim.

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

    59% 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