PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 1
Psychiatrist: We are learning that neurochemical imbalances can(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AUnderstanding the role(10 more words not shown)
- BNeurochemical imbalances can(6 more words not shown)
- CNeurochemical balances and(8 more words not shown)
- DBeing mentally healthy(12 more words not shown)
- EAdvances in neurochemistry(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Understanding why someone behaves differently doesn't guarantee we'll treat that person any better.
I'm willing to accept the psychiatrist's starting point about brain chemistry affecting behavior. But when the psychiatrist moves from that discovery to greater compassion, I want to push back. Someone could understand that a behavior has a chemical cause and still make fun of the person displaying it. Knowing why something happens and responding kindly are different things.
There's another step to consider: do the people whose behavior is supposed to change even hear about the research?
Scientists learning something doesn't automatically mean everyone else learns it too. And even if the findings reach the public, our first concern remains. Understanding doesn't guarantee tolerance.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked for the conclusion. What claim were we questioning? That these findings will make people more compassionate and tolerant. The information about brain chemistry is offered as a reason to expect that change. We can identify the psychiatrist's point without agreeing that the evidence establishes it.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Understanding the role of brain chemistry will encourage empathy toward others. That expresses the predicted change we were questioning. “Empathy” captures the compassionate response the psychiatrist expects; an answer can change the wording while preserving the point. The conclusion is about how people will treat or regard one another, not merely about what the research discovers.
- B
This is the starting scientific finding. The psychiatrist uses it to support the prediction of greater compassion. Try reading the relationship as a sentence: people will become more tolerant because they better understand these chemical causes. The scientific finding is the reason offered for the social prediction, not the prediction itself.
- C
Causing some behavior doesn't make brain chemistry the main determinant of behavior. That ranking is new. More importantly for this question, the psychiatrist's point concerns compassion and tolerance, not which influence on behavior matters most.
- D
This is the final supporting idea: mental health can begin to be viewed as having the chemical balances most people have. The psychiatrist thinks that way of viewing differences will encourage tolerance. Appearing at the end doesn't make a statement the conclusion; here it follows “since” and gives a reason for the preceding prediction.
- E
This stays on the scientific side of the discussion. Better theories might be part of what advances in neurochemistry provide, but the psychiatrist goes further and predicts a change in people's responses to each other. E leaves out that central claim.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.