Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S4 · Q7 Psychologist: Research has shown that a weakened

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

Psychologist: Research has shown that a weakened immune system increases vulnerability to cancer.

Conclusion

Cancer-patient support groups might have genuine therapeutic value

Evidence

Cancer-patient support groups reduce stress for their participants.

And a weakened immune system increases vulnerability to cancer.

Evaluate

Sorry, what? What is the argument? Sometimes LSAC throws us these convoluted messes where it's hard to process what the author is even trying to argue, let alone argue with him.

The good news is that when the logic is this hard to put together, it normally means that once you figure out the author's thought process, the correct answer is just testing the connective tissue you assembled.

Since our author's conclusion is saying cancer support groups —c→ therapeutic value we need to figure out how the author got from cancer support group to therapeutic value.

The evidence definitely talks about support groups (it says they reduce stress), but where does the therapeutic value come in?

Here we have to exert some will power / outside knowledge. The first sentence is talking about immune system and vulnerability to cancer. And the following sentence begins "So". That means the author thinks the first sentence is a reason we should believe that cancer-support groups have a therapeutic value (i.e. they help you with your cancer).

The author must be assuming that cancer-support groups have something to do with how strong or weak your immune system is, if the first sentence supposedly supports the conclusion.

Obviously, a weaker immune system wouldn't help your cancer, so the author must be thinking that cancer support groups lead to a strengthened immune system, which leads to decreased vulnerability to cancer.

How do cancer support groups lead to a strengthened immune system? We'll take the one thing the author told us about them (reduce stress) and assume the author is drawing some connection from stress to immune system.

It seems like this is the intended causal story the author is making.

Cancer Reduced Stronger Less vulnerable support → stress → Immune → to cancer groups

Goal

The link we invented there for the author was the middle one, so we should look for an answer saying that "reduced stress" can lead to "stronger immune system" or some other way of stating that those two are connected.

7.

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

  1. Cancer patients can learn to

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: learn to function well Too Strong: extreme stress Nothing in this argument is talking about whether or not cancer patients learn to work well under stress.

    0% picked this

  2. Disease is not a biochemical

    Too Strong: not at all

    The author hasn't committed herself to the insanely strong position that disease is not biochemical at all. However, the author apparently assumes that disease is not totally biochemical, because she thinks that psychological things like support groups / stress can help your cancer disease.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    Stress can weaken the immune

    Why this is right

    We knew the author must have been connecting stress to immune system, because otherwise there was no relationship between the premise that mentions "cancer support groups" and the premise that mentions "vulnerability to cancer". If stress has no effect on the immune system, this would weaken the argument by making the two premises have no connection to each other, and the author is hoping to connect those two premises in order to attach "cancer support groups" to "helps your cancer (genuine therapeutic value)".

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

    89% picked this

  4. Discussing one's condition eliminates the

    Too Strong: eliminates

    The author said that support groups reduce stress. She didn't commit herself to the position that discussing your condition eliminates stress.

    5% picked this

  5. Stress is a symptom of

    Reverses Causal Direction

    The author needs to think that "by getting rid of stress, cancer support groups help your immune system". Stress needs to be a causal factor that influences the immune system. This answer is saying that the immune system is a causal factor that influences stress.

    5% 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