Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q15 Psychologist: Doctors should never prescribe

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: Doctors should never prescribe sedatives for people with insomnia.

Conclusion

Doctors should never prescribe sedatives for insomniacs.

Intermediate Conclusion (this suggest that)

Insomniacs don't need drugs to alter their biochemistry; they need psychotherapy to help them alleviate the stress causing their insomnia.

Evidence

Most cases of insomnia that psychologists treat are known to be caused by psychological stress.

Evaluate

Yikes, we need to pick four flaws with this argument. We probably won't predict all four, but does anything already jump out?

The first sentence sounds real strong: never prescribe sedatives for insomnia?

The evidence only dealt with "most cases of insomnia that psychologists treat". Even if those are cases where we shouldn't prescribe sedatives, what about the remaining cases of insomnia that psychologists treat could be eligible for sedatives? What if there are cases of insomnia that psychologists don't treat?

The argument seems to be assuming that, , but who says that? Maybe something caused by stress can still be treated by altering biochemistry.

Goal

As long as we have a couple gripes, we can feel good about heading to answers. We need to find four answers that describe something true and objectionable about the argument.

15.

Each of the following describes a flaw in the psychologist's reasoning EXCEPT:

  1. Correct

    It presumes, without providing warrant,

    Why this is right

    Say what? When did the author ever assume that insomnia makes it harder to cope with stress? The argument was never implying that insomnia caused something related to stress. It was saying that stress causes insomnia, and it assumed that alleviating stress could alleviate the insomnia. Since it isn't true that the author was ever assuming this, it's our correct answer!

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

    74% picked this

  2. It fails to consider the

    Valid Objection

    Since this starts with "fails to consider / overlooks the possibility", we can ask ourselves whether it would weaken if we said, "Hey author, sedatives are the only treatment that's effective for the non-stress related cases of insomnia." Sure! That would go against the author's first claim that doctors should never prescribe sedatives for insomnia. Even if they shouldn't use sedatives for the stress-related cases, they still might sometimes want to prescribe sedatives, if it's the only effective treatment for the other cases of insomnia.

    12% picked this

  3. It neglects the possibility that

    Valid Objection

    Since this starts with "fails to consider / overlooks the possibility", we can ask ourselves whether it would weaken if we said, "Hey author, for some people, psychotherapy is completely ineffective at treating stress". Sure, this undermines the author's final claim. She is prescribing psychotherapy instead of sedatives, thinking that the psychotherapy will alleviate the stress that's causing the insomnia and thereby relieve the insomnia. But if some people don't get their stress relieved by psychotherapy, then they might need a treatment like sedatives.

    3% picked this

  4. It overlooks the possibility that

    Valid Objection

    Since this starts with "fails to consider / overlooks the possibility", we can ask ourselves whether it would weaken if we said, "Hey author, sedatives can help insomniacs cope with stress." Sure, that helps us argue that we could potentially prescribe sedatives for insomnia. The author was thinking, "Since most cases are caused by stress, we need to have a remedy like psychotherapy that alleviates stress." But we can say, "hey buddy, sedatives also alleviate stress, so we can still prescribe sedatives for some cases."

    3% picked this

  5. It presumes, without providing justification,

    Valid Objection

    Since this starts with "presumes / takes for granted", we can ask ourselves if the author was assuming that the cases of insomnia that psychologists treat are representative of all cases. It's an extreme sounding idea, and normally we're nervous about accusing the author of assuming something extreme, but it's potentially okay to have a strongly worded assumption if the conclusion is strongly worded. Our author's conclusion is saying doctors should never prescribe sedatives. for insomnia. So it is making a claim about about all cases of insomnia. Meanwhile, the evidence is only talking about cases of insomnia that psychologists treat. So there is a sampling assumption happening, moving from evidence about the cases of insomnia that psychologists treat to a conclusion about all cases of insomnia.

    8% 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