PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 9
Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AA decrease in(16 more words not shown)
- BShort-term relaxation training(19 more words not shown)
- CRecipients of long-term(18 more words not shown)
- DThe fact that(22 more words not shown)
- EShort-term relaxation training(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Long-term training can produce results quickly. The length of the training and the time it takes to see an improvement are different things.
In fact, the studies explicitly tell us that both forms of training bring anxiety symptoms down to normal within the shorter period. So the author isn't showing that long-term training fails. The argument is that, if both get people to the same point that quickly, the generally greater expense of long-term training isn't justified for most people.
What we’re looking for
I can see the appeal of that comparison, but getting a quick result doesn't automatically settle the value of the full training. We need to ask what the extra training does, not simply notice when the first improvement arrives. To weaken the argument, I'd want a reason the longer treatment could still be worth its greater cost. We can accept the early improvement under both approaches while questioning whether that comparison tells the whole story.
Working the answers
- A
If symptoms often improve without professional treatment, that doesn't give us a reason to pay for the longer training rather than the shorter one. It may make the case for additional treatment less compelling. It certainly doesn't establish an advantage that would undermine this argument's preference for avoiding the extra expense.
- B
Cost does matter, but this compares particular practitioners: an experienced short-term provider can charge more than an inexperienced long-term provider. That's compatible with long-term training being generally more expensive. An exception to the usual price pattern doesn't show that the longer course is warranted for most people.
- CCorrect
How long does the improvement last? This gives the longer training an advantage the early-results comparison misses: recipients are much less likely to experience problematic anxiety again.
A treatment that helps today but leaves the problem likely to return can be less valuable than one that also helps prevent its return. Imagine feeling better briefly only to face the same problem later. Both treatments could produce equally quick initial improvement while providing very different lasting benefits. That gives us a reason the extra time and expense could be worthwhile, without denying the study results.
- D
Expectations could contribute to improvement under either form of training. Knowing that believing a treatment will work can help doesn't show that the longer treatment offers more value than the shorter one. We would need something distinguishing the options, not an effect that could occur with both.
- E
The number of techniques isn't the same as their effectiveness. One useful technique could do more than several less useful ones. And this answer gives the wider variety to short-term training, so it doesn't identify an overlooked benefit of the long-term option. C supplies the meaningful difference: fewer recurrences.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.