Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S4 · Q25 Therapist: In a recent study

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

Therapist: In a recent study, researchers measured how quickly 60 different psychological problems waned as a large, diverse sample of people underwent weekly behavioral therapy sessions.

Conclusion (This shows that)

50 weekly behavioral therapy sessions are all that most people need.

Evidence (study)

In a study of 60 different psychological problems, 75% of them consistently cleared up within 50 weeks of behavioral therapy.

Evaluate

Given that ... within this study, most problems cleared up with 50 weeks (75%),

How could we still argue that ... most people would need more than 50 weekly behavioral sessions?

Actually, we have several options:

- maybe the study is messed up for some reason. We know that it's a "large and diverse sample", though, so it is unlikely that the sample is too unrepresentative.

- maybe there's a different way to explain the results. We know that within 50 weeks, 75% of problems cleared up, but do we know they cleared up because of the therapy sessions? Maybe these people were also trying other new things during these 50 weeks (more exercise, better diet, meditation) and those are really responsible for the improvement.

- maybe it was the therapy that cleared up the problems, but we can still argue that 50 sessions are not all that most people need. Perhaps 50 sessions is enough to "clear up" the problem, but it will recur soon thereafter if we stop regularly having sessions. Perhaps "most people" suffer from a problem that wasn't tested by the study.

Goal

There are lots of different options for attacking an argument that has Sampling concerns, Causal reasoning concerns, and a term shift from to .

We'll have to judge each answer to see if passes our two part checklist: 1. Is it descriptively true? 2. if so, does this sound like a logical complaint?

25.

The therapist's argument is logically most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. takes for granted that there

    Too Strong: no

    Since this begins with takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume this claim. The author needs to assume that "there are no problems that usually take longer to clear up than the 60 studied and which afflict most people". But without that tag, it's too strong. If we negate this assumption and say, "Hey, author -- there is at least one psychological problem that takes longer than any of the problems in the study", it wouldn't weaken the argument. The author can say, "Cool, yeah, I realize that. I didn't say 50 weeks would be enough for everyone just for most people. I admit, 50 weeks won't be enough for people who have that problem, but that's not most people." Until we say that most people have a sort of problem that takes longer than the 60 studied, it doesn't become much of an objection.

    23% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to address the possibility

    Why this is right

    Since this starts with fails to consider, we'll ask ourselves if the idea that follows would be an Objection. Can we hurt the argument by saying that "any one of the 60 studied problems could afflict most people"? Could that give us a way to argue that, "50 weeks would not be enough for most people"? Yes! 75% is 3/4, so of the 60 problems studied, 45 of them were cleared up. But what if most people are afflicted with one of the 15 problems that didn't clear up? What if the ones that didn't clear up in 50 weeks are some of the most common ones, like depression and anxiety? The author was assuming that because most problems cleared up, that would take care of most people. But if the problems that didn't clear up in the 50 weeks are the most common psychological problems, then we have a way to say that "most people would need more than 50 weeks".

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

    44% picked this

  3. takes for granted that no

    Too Strong: no one

    Since this begins with takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume this claim. If we negate this assumption and say, "Hey, author — there is at least one person who suffers from more than one of these problems", it wouldn't weaken the argument. The author can say, "Cool, yeah, I that's fine. I didn't say 50 weeks would be enough for everyone just for most people. I admit, 50 weeks won't be enough for people who have a multitude of problems, but that's not most people." Until we say that most people have more than one problem, it doesn't become much of an objection.

    14% picked this

  4. fails to address the possibility

    Not an Objection

    Since this starts with fails to consider, we'll ask ourselves if the idea that follows would be an Objection. Can we hurt the argument by saying that "there are some forms of therapy that have never been proven effective for psychological problems?" Of course not. They are totally irrelevant to the author's argument, which is specifically about behavioral sessions, which have been plausibly shown to be effective against 75% of the psychological problems in this study.

    3% picked this

  5. takes for granted that the

    Not Necessary

    Since this begins with takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume this claim. If we negate this assumption and say, "Hey, author -- the people studied did have way more psychological problems, on average, then the general population", would that weaken? No, not quite. It actually strengthens. The author could say, "I know, right? The people in this study were way more addled by problems than are most people, and even for them 50 weeks was all that was needed! So you know that 50 weeks would be enough for most people." The author needs to assume an inverse of this: "the sample of people studied did not have significantly fewer problems, on average, than the overall population". If you negate that assumption, you get an objection. We might be thinking, "Yes, but isn't the author just in general assuming that this sample is representative?" No, not necessarily. If the sample is representative that strengthens the argument, but it's not necessary, as the negation test just revealed. If a drug were shown to be effective on the worst headaches, then you would assume that it will help most people with headaches. Proving yourself against tougher competition shows you're ready for ordinary competition.

    17% 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