PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 6
Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AMost therapists who(11 more words not shown)
- BCriminals are no(13 more words not shown)
- CVictims of future(12 more words not shown)
- DThe right of(18 more words not shown)
- EA therapist who(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see the dilemma. A therapist wants a client to speak honestly, but also doesn't want anyone else to get hurt. Keeping the client's confidence and protecting other people could pull in different directions.
Notice, though, what the client has disclosed: unreported crimes, not necessarily plans for new ones. The author worries that keeping past crimes confidential leaves the client free to commit future crimes. That concern makes sense, but “free to commit more crimes” doesn't mean “certain to commit more crimes.” Could the person change?
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the claim that the therapist cannot respect confidentiality and sincerely care about future victims. One possible way out would be a rule allowing a therapist to report a danger without violating confidentiality. I'm not claiming such a rule applies here; I'm imagining a fact that would remove the forced choice. We want some way for a therapist to care about both sides instead of having to abandon one.
Working the answers
- A
Who assigned the therapist doesn't resolve the dilemma. A court-appointed therapist could still face the same choice between reporting a client's past crimes and maintaining the client's trust. We need information about how both concerns can be addressed, not how the therapist got the client.
- B
The chance of receiving therapy inside versus outside prison doesn't explain what the therapist can do once treatment occurs. Whether access is equal or unequal, the author could still claim that keeping a dangerous client's confidence conflicts with concern for future victims.
- C
Future victims' privacy in their own therapy is a different issue. The argument concerns preventing them from becoming victims in the first place. Giving them confidentiality afterward doesn't show how keeping this client's confidence can serve their safety.
- D
Compensation concerns what a victim is owed after being harmed. The argument's dilemma concerns protecting potential victims while respecting a client's confidence. Ranking compensation alongside confidentiality doesn't supply a way to prevent another offense.
- ECorrect
Here is a different way to escape the dilemma: use the client's trust to help prevent another crime. If the therapist can persuade the client not to repeat the offenses, maintaining that trust can serve future victims' welfare too.
We don't have to invent an exception to confidentiality. The relationship that confidentiality protects can itself help keep other people safe. Nor does E promise that every therapist will succeed with every client. It gives us a way the two concerns can work together, challenging the author's claim that a therapist cannot sincerely hold both.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.