Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q22 Repressors—people who unconsciously inhibit

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

Repressors—people who unconsciously inhibit their display of emotion—exhibit significant increases in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations.

Conclusion

The act of inhibiting displays of emotion (consciously or unconsciously) causes a sharp rise in heart rate.

Evidence

People who unconsciously inhibit emotion (repressors) have a sharp rise in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations.

People who consciously inhibit emotion (nonrepressors) also have a sharp rise in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations.

Evaluate

This argument seems pretty logically sound on first read, so I would shift into Debate mode to figure out where the wiggle room is.

Given that ... both conscious and unconscious inhibitors have a sharp rise in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations,

How could we argue that ... the act of inhibiting emotion does not cause a sharp rise in heart rate?

I guess we would have to explain the rise in heart rate some other way. Maybe the emotion-provoking situation is something that causes fear or anger, and fear / anger cause your heart rate to rise. Whether or not you show emotion or repress emotion doesn't actually make a difference.

If your boss is chewing you out, your heart rate will spike. The fact that some people are consciously or unconsciously hiding their emotional reaction is just part of how they're reacting to the situation, but the heart rate spike is caused by the situation, not by their conscious/unconscious decision to repress their emotions.

22.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

  1. Correct

    Encountering an emotion-provoking situation is

    Why this is right

    When Necessary Assumption answer choices are phrased like they're ruling-out a possibility "it is not the case that ____ ", we should be tempted and immediately try negating it. The correct answer, when negated, weakens more than any other answer. If we said "encountering an emotion-provoking situation is sufficient to cause nonrepressors' heart rates to rise sharply", would that weaken? Yes. If their heart rates sharply went up just from the situation itself, then we wouldn't say that their conscious decision to inhibit their emotion is what caused the sharp rise in heart rate. Whether they decided to show their emotions or to consciously hide them, their heart rate had already sharply increased.

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

    64% picked this

  2. Nonrepressors can inhibit facial and

    Too Strong: as well as

    The author doesn't have to believe that conscious repressors are identically capable of hiding emotion as unconscious repressors are. If consciously repressing emotion is only 85% as effective at inhibiting facial / bodily displays of emotion, that wouldn't change anything in this argument. Hence, negating this answer doesn't weaken.

    7% picked this

  3. Despite their outward calm, repressors

    Out of Scope Comparison

    Given that this argument is treating repressors and nonrepressors equivalently in the conclusion ("whether done consciously or unconsciously"), there's no reason we'd be saying that the author had to assume a difference between them. If we negated this and said that repressors feel pretty much equally excited as nonrepressors do, that wouldn't change anything in the argument.

    2% picked this

  4. People who are ordinarily very

    Out of Scope: asked to repress

    This argument doesn't speak at all to a hypothetical scenario in which a "very emotional" person is asked to refrain from feeling strong emotions. We have no idea what the author thinks about this answer choice.

    4% picked this

  5. In situations that do not

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: other situations Too Strong: same The argument is only dealing with the heart rate of people who encounter emotion-provoking situations. She hasn't weighed in on how repressors and nonrepressors would compare to each other in a situation that doesn't provoke emotions. If we said that "in other situations, the heart rates of repressors is not identical to the heart rate of nonrepressors" that wouldn't weaken the argument at all.

    23% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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