Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q4 Traditional "talk" therapy, in which

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

Traditional "talk" therapy, in which a patient with a psychological disorder discusses it with a trained therapist, produces chemical changes in the brain.

Conclusion

Physicians will eventually be able to treat psychological disorders as effectively with drugs (pharmacological intervention) as we currently can with "talk" methods.

Evidence

"Talk" methods produce chemical changes in the brain. These changes seem to correspond with (and the author assumes account for) the patient's behavior changing.

Evaluate

The author is thinking that since Talk therapy -> changes chemicals -?> changes behavior

it makes sense that Drug therapy -> changes chemicals --> changes behavior

This argument is triggering our normal Causal and Comparison questions.

When it comes to causal, the author is assuming from a correlation between chemical changes / behavioral changes, the chemical changes caused the behavioral changes. That's why the author assumes that drugs could work just as way. She's thinking, .

Besides assuming that correlation is causation, the author is also assuming that drugs have the ability to change the same chemical changes that talk therapy causes, and she's assuming that the drug way of causing those chemical changes doesn't come with enough compelling negative side effects that it wouldn't be acceptable as a treatment method.

Goal

Look for an answer calling our the "correlation to causality" shift, or an answer calling out the assumption that .

4.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. All neurochemical changes produce corresponding

    Too Strong: all

    The author is definitely assuming that some neurochemical changes produce psychological changes (she assumes the neurochemicals affected talk therapy are causing the behavioral changes observed in the patients). But she doesn't need to assume all changes cause psychological changes. Negating this would only be saying that "There is at least one neurochemical change that doesn't produce a psychological change". The author would not consider that an objection. She'd be like, "Well, sure -- you can change increase someone's serotonin by 0.1%, and there won't be any psychological change".

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    Improvements in a patient's behavior

    Why this is right

    We discussed before that the author was assuming that drugs are capable of replicating the chemical changes that talk radio causes in the brain. This answer is getting at an additional piece of wiggle room: there may be non-chemical things that talk therapy changes as well, and those may contribute to the changes in patient's behavior. If we negate this answer, it turns into this objection: "the improvements we see in patients' behavior that are produced by talk therapy involve more than just chemical changes in the brain." Even if drugs could replicate the chemical changes, they might not be able to reproduce the non-chemical things that talk therapy is doing for a patient.

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

    73% picked this

  3. "Talk" therapy has not been

    Too Strong: ineffective

    If talk therapy weren't effective at changing behavior, then it would be pretty easy for drugs to match it (all they have to do is "nothing"!). But the author doesn't need to assume that talk therapy is doing nothing. Talk therapy might be genuinely effective; the author would still be able to make her argument that drugs will be similarly effective by causing the same chemical reactions in the brain.

    3% picked this

  4. If chemical changes in the

    Too Strong: eventually indistinguishable

    The author is only claiming that drugs will eventually be as effective as talk therapy currently is. She doesn't have to go as far as thinking that once that happens (or at some point after it happens), all of psychology and neuroscience will be indistinguishable. If we negate this and say that the two fields will never be identical, it's still possible for the author to argue, "True, but in this regard, they'll be the same: drugs and talk therapy will both be able to achieve the same type of behavioral modifications."

    10% picked this

  5. Direct intervention in the brain's

    Out of Scope: expensive

    Nothing in this argument is about money. The only thing the author is assuming about money, in believing that drugs will one day treat patients as effectively as talk therapy, is that "the cost of using drugs to produce the same chemical changes that talk therapy does will not be prohibitively high".

    2% 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