Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S4 · Q11 Psychiatrist: While the first appearance

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

Psychiatrist: While the first appearance of a phobia is usually preceded by a traumatizing event, not everyone who is traumatized by an event develops a phobia.

Conclusion (this shows that)

Traumatizing events do not contribute to the occurrence of phobias.

Evidence

Not everyone who is traumatized by an event develops a phobia. Many people with phobias have never been traumatized.

Evaluate

Given that ... many traumatized people don't get phobias and many people with phobias have never been traumatized,

How could we argue that ... traumatizing events do contribute to the occurrence of phobias?

Maybe we could just argue that sometimes trauma leads to phobia, but not always. Maybe it takes the right combination of circumstances and personality for a trauma to yield a phobia, but the traumatizing event is a contributing factor.

For example, we believe that "scoring 180 contributes to getting accepted into Yale", even though not everyone who gets a 180 gets into Yale and many people who get into Yale don't have a 180.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that even if there are exceptions where A doesn't cause B or exceptions where B happens even though A didn't, there could still be some causal connection sometimes between A and B.

11.

The reasoning in the psychiatrist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. treats the cause of the

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer is shorthand for an author thinking X causes Y, when in reality Y causes X (also known as Reverse Causality). But the author doesn't conclude that one thing causes another. She concludes that one thing doesn't cause another. She doesn't think trauma or phobia are cause or effect of each other.

    6% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: can't be established

    Since this begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether what follows is a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that "some mental events have no causes that can be established by science"? No. The author doesn't need some "crimes" to be unsolvable. It doesn't hurt the author's argument if all psychological events have causes that can be established by science. The argument is merely saying that "traumatizing events" are never a cause of phobias. She doesn't have to believe that the cause of phobias can never be established by science.

    2% picked this

  3. builds the conclusion drawn into

    Not Circular

    This refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, which is when the premise restates the conclusion or requires it to be true. This answer is almost never right. The two premises do not repeat the conclusion. Only the conclusion has any causal wording ("contribute").

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    takes for granted that a

    Why this is right

    Since this begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether what follows is a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that "X contributes to Y only if X and Y are invariably associated"? Since this is conditional, (only if), we mainly want to ask ourselves, "Did the author make this reasoning move? We may have to contrapose in order to recognize it". The contrapositive of this is saying: X and Y are not ? X does not invariably associated contribute to Y The fact that the right side matches the wording of the conclusion makes this very attractive. The author was trying to conclude that trauma does not contribute to phobia. Was the evidence saying that "trauma" and "phobia" are not invariably associated? Yes. An invariable association means that whenever a trauma is present, a phobia is present. Whenever a trauma is absent, a phobia is absent. And the evidence established that this is not the case. Sometimes trauma is present and phobia is absent. Sometimes trauma is absent and phobia is present.

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

    75% picked this

  5. derives a causal connection from

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer is shorthand for an author thinking that a correlation between X and Y indicates that X causes Y. But the author doesn't conclude/derive that one thing causes another. She concludes that one thing doesn't cause another.

    12% 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