PrepTest 110, Section 2, Question 11
Some psychologists claim that, in theory, the best(67 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(5 more words not shown)
- Afails to adequately(6 more words not shown)
- Bassumes something that(7 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses a theoretically(12 more words not shown)
- Daccepts a claim(7 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about understanding someone imperfectly?
The psychologists describe the theoretically best way to understand a person: directly and completely grasping that person's motivations. The author says that kind of understanding is impossible. Even if we grant that, why would it make every degree of understanding impossible? I could understand some of a friend's reasons without knowing every motivation behind everything the friend does.
That's the gap. An ideal method could be unavailable while less complete methods still work. The psychologists don't say deep empathy is the only possible way to understand anyone. So showing that we understand people without achieving that ideal doesn't refute their claim about which method would be best in theory.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for the switch from “best” to “only.” The author needs the method to be the only route in order for its impossibility to eliminate understanding altogether. But that is not what the psychologists claimed.
Working the answers
- A
The passage explains what it means by deep empathy: a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations. We can follow the argument using that description. The difficulty is not that the phrase has no definition; it's what the author thinks follows when that ideal cannot be achieved.
- B
Supposing a claim is true in order to examine its consequences isn't the same as adopting it and then contradicting yourself. The author temporarily accepts the psychologists' view, tries to derive an unacceptable result, and rejects the view. That style of argument can work. Here, the problem is the unsupported step used to derive the result: treating the best method as the only method.
- CCorrect
If deep empathy were the only way to understand someone, its impossibility would indeed rule out understanding. But the psychologists only call it the best way in theory. Other, less complete ways could remain available.
The author therefore hasn't shown a conflict between the psychologists' position and the fact that people understand one another. Both could be true: the ideal method is unavailable, and ordinary methods still give us some understanding.
- D
The author isn't accepting a claim because psychologists are authorities. The argument actually challenges their claim and offers a reason for rejecting it. Whether that reason succeeds is our issue; blind reliance on their expertise is not.
- E
Other psychologists could disagree, but that wouldn't fix or expose this argument's specific mistake. We still need to know whether the author's reasoning defeats the stated claim. The passage attributes that claim to some psychologists without asserting that every psychologist agrees.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.