Logical Reasoning

PT8 · S4 · Q22 Psychologists today recognize childhood

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

Psychologists today recognize childhood as a separate stage of life which can only be understood in its own terms, and they wonder why the Western world took so long to see the folly of regarding children simply as small, inadequately socialized adults.

Conclusion (therefore)

Serious research into the unique psychology of advanced age has become indispensable.

Evidence

Old age is as different from young/middle adulthood as childhood is.

Psychologists already accept that childhood is a separate stage of life that must be understood in its own terms.

But most psychologists treat 70-90 year olds as just middle-aged people with extra leisure.

Evaluate

If the answers are the typical conditional form we see on Principle-Strengthen, then we know the outcome should be something like,

"we need serious research into advanced age pschology"

In terms of the trigger, which should match up with something we know from the evidence, what do we know about advanced age?

It's as different as childhood is from those middle stages of life. Psychologists persist in thinking of advanced age as a slightly different version of those middle stages.

Goal

Find a principle where the trigger would apply to advanced age / the psychology of advanced age, and where the outcome sounds like it's saying "we need serious research in this area".

22.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would provide the strongest backing for the argument?

Whenever current psychological practice conflicts
Bad Trigger Match
The outcome of this principle is about changing traditional attitudes. The author's conclusion isn't calling for a change in traditional attitudes. It's calling for serious research into a certain field. So there's no way this gets a serious read on a first pass.
11% picked this
Whenever two groups of people
Bad Trigger Match
This principle would allow us to conclude that "people in this group shouldn't be regarded as simply deviant members of that group". Probably the most charitable match for this conversation is, "People in the advanced age group shouldn't be regarded as simply deviant members of the young/middle aged adult group." The conclusion is about whether or not serious research is needed, not about whether not old people are deviant members of the "adult" category.
7% picked this
Whenever most practitioners of a
Bad Trigger Match
This would support a conclusion that says, "all similar problems should be treated [in a certain way]." That seems miles away from, "we need serious research in this area". The evidence never spoke of most practitioners approaching a certain problem the same way, so neither the trigger nor the conclusion here match.
7% picked this
Correct
Whenever a society’s economic life
Why this is right
This rule would allow us to conclude, "each time of life can be understood only in terms of its own distinct psychology". That's pretty close to, "we need serious research into the unique psychology of advanced age." Does the trigger of this rule apply to our conversation? Yes we were told that the organization of society's economic life is evidence that old age is fundamentally different from young/middle age, which implies that the organization of society's economic life is different older adults compared to younger adults. So the evidence conveys the idea implicitly that "economic life is organized in a way where advanced age is treated as fundamentally different from young adult / middle age." According to this rule, advanced age can be understood only in terms of its distinct psychology (same for middle age / young adult). And while this doesn't exactly match the conclusion, it's right "on the doorstep". If you know that we can ONLY understand it in terms of its own distinct psychology (and you know that we don't currently understand it that way, since most psychologists think of it as 35 year olds with white hair and free time), then you arrive at the idea that we need to do research so that we can understand it on its own terms.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
Whenever psychologists agree that a
Bad Trigger Match
Have psychologists agreed that a single psychology is inadequate for lumping together advanced age people with middle aged people? The author is convinced, but we were never told psychologists had reached that consensus. So the trigger doesn't fire. If anything, this feels more like a reversal of the argument. The author is trying to persuade us that a single psychology is inadequate, in her conclusion. We never want to see the Conclusion in the trigger. The outcome of this rule sounds nothing like the conclusion. It's a rule that allows you to say that "psychologists should be prepared to show greater differences here rather than there". The conclusion isn't about an obligation to show greater disparity. It's about an obligation to study a unique area of research.
14% 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