PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 4
Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before the(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AMost minor mental(11 more words not shown)
- BPrevention research can(10 more words not shown)
- CReducing known risk(13 more words not shown)
- DCurrent funding for(11 more words not shown)
- EOnce a mental(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The early results sound promising. If intervention can reduce factors that contribute to mental disorders, it might help people before a disorder develops. But the passage is careful: the research is limited, and a larger program is needed to verify the results and work out specific measures.
I can follow the recommendation to investigate further. My first question is whether that requires more funding. What if the existing budget can already pay for the larger research program? Needing more research doesn't automatically establish a need for additional money.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd initially look for that connection: conducting the needed research requires increased funding. If the larger program cannot happen with the money already available, that would answer the objection we raised while reading.
Working the answers
- A
This compares treating minor mental disorders with treating other minor health problems. We need to assess the proposed early intervention, not rank mental-health treatment against unrelated care. Even if the comparison is true, A doesn't tell us whether reducing risk factors would be a cost-effective alternative to treating the disorders later.
- B
This tells us how researchers could coordinate their work. It doesn't tell us that they need additional funding to do so, or that early intervention offers the cost advantage the recommendation aims to investigate. Bringing these specialists together could be feasible under the existing budget.
- CCorrect
This supports a different part of the argument from my initial prediction. Reducing risk factors is relatively inexpensive compared with the long-term treatment the disorders require. That gives us a reason to explore the proposed approach as a potentially cost-effective way to help.
The early research suggests intervention can reduce contributing factors. C adds that reducing those factors could be cheaper than dealing with the disorders through long-term treatment. Together, those points make further investigation more worthwhile.
C doesn't prove the current research budget is inadequate. It doesn't have to answer every possible concern to strengthen the recommendation. Its contribution is the potential cost saving, not a claim that research itself is expensive.
- D
Higher than before doesn't mean enough. A budget could rise from one dollar to five dollars and remain far too small for the work needed. Or the new budget could be ample. Without a comparison between available funding and the research's needs, this historical high doesn't establish a reason to increase funding further.
- E
Recurrence is a reason treatment can remain an ongoing concern. But E doesn't connect intervention before a disorder begins with a cheaper or more effective response. It tells us a difficulty faced after a disorder disappears without showing that the proposed approach would avoid that difficulty. C supplies the direct cost comparison the conclusion needs.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.