Traditional "talk" therapy, in which

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: all12% picked this

   All neurochemical changes produce corresponding psychological

   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%
2. B

   Correct72% picked this

   Improvements in a patient's behavior produced by "talk" therapy occur only through chemical changes in

   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.

   72%
3. C

   Too Strong: ineffective3% picked this

   "Talk" therapy has not been effective at bringing about

   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%
4. D

   Too Strong: eventually indistinguishable10% picked this

   If chemical changes in the brain's neurochemistry correspond to improvements in patient behavior, then psychology and neuroscience

   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%
5. E

   Out of Scope: expensive2% picked this

   Direct intervention in the brain's neurochemistry is likely to become a less expensive way of treating psychological disorders

   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%