Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S4 · Q13 “Addiction” has been defined as

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

“Addiction” has been defined as “dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance.” Dependence and abuse do not always go hand in hand, however.

Conclusion (therefore)

The definition of "addiction" is incorrect. rephrase: sometimes people are dependent on and abusing a psychoactive substance, but it's not addiction, or sometimes people are addicted even though they're not dependent on or abusing a psychoactive substance.

Intermediate Conclusion

Dependence and abuse to do not always go hand in hand.

Evidence

Addiction has been defined as "dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance".

But cancer patients can become dependent on morphine to relieve their pain, but this is not abusing the drug. And a person can abuse a drug without being dependent on it.

Evaluate

This argument is pretty hard to figure out. The author is rejecting a possible definition of "addiction", but her evidence never mentions addiction. It only talks about dependence and abuse.

The definition she's rejecting says, .

Her comment that is irrelevant. No one ever said they always go hand in hand. The definition of addiction is just saying that when they go hand in hand (with a psychoactive substance), we call it addiction.

What does it take, logically speaking, to prove a definition is wrong?

Let's say the word father has been defined as .

Someone with an adopted parent might say,

In other words, to prove a definition is wrong you have to establish: 1. the definition fits, but the term doesn't apply or 2. the definition doesn't fit, but the term should apply

What was this author trying to do, #1 or #2, or both?

She presented a case of cancer patients who are dependent on morphine but not abusing it. So they would not fit the definition of addiction (because the definition is that you're both dependent on it and abusing it).

So she must be trying there to use the #2 method.

Her second example, someone who abuses but is not dependent, is also a case in which the definition doesn't fit. So she would be trying to use this as well as a #2 example, where the definition doesn't fit but yet the term addiction should apply.

Goal

Let's look for something saying she's assuming that the term addicted should apply to these cancer patients who are dependent on morphine but not addicted, or it should apply to people who abuse a drug without being dependent on it.

13.

The relevance of the example of cancer patients to the argument depends on the assumption that

  1. cancer patients never abuse morphine

    Too Strong: never

    This author certainly hasn't committed herself to the extreme view that zero cancer patients ever abuse morphine. She says "cancer patients can (sometimes) be dependent even though they're not abusing it."

    30% picked this

  2. cancer patients often become dependent

    Too Strong: often

    The author just said that "cancer patients can become dependent on morphine". She didn't say it often happens, and she doesn't need to assume it often happens. For her purposes, she just needs it to be true that "if a cancer patient were dependent on morphine but not abusing it, that patient should be considered to be addicted to morphine."

    14% picked this

  3. Correct

    cancer patients who are dependent

    Why this is right

    In order to prove that this definition of addiction is incorrect, she is trying to show us an example where the definition wouldn't apply even though the term addiction should apply. One of her examples is "cancer patients who are dependent on morphine, but not abusing it". She has established that the definition would not apply to them, but in order for that to mean anything, she also needs to establish that these people are addicted. If we negated this, we'd be saying, "Hey, author -- those cancer patients aren't addicted to morphine. So what does this have to do with anything? You're trying to convince us that this definition of addicted is wrong, and you're talking about people who aren't addicted to something. Who cares that this definition of addiction doesn't apply to these cancer patients. Since they're not addicted, it shouldn't apply to them." If the negation of an answer becomes an objection, then we know the answer was telling us a Necessary Assumption.

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

    42% picked this

  4. cancer patients who abuse a

    Opposite, if anything

    She literally says "a person can abuse a drug without being dependent on it", so we can't say she's assuming that people who abuse a drug are dependent on it.

    5% picked this

  5. cancer patients cannot depend on

    Opposite

    She says the opposite of this. She says that cancer patients can be dependent on morphine, but this it not abusing it.

    9% 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