PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 7
Psychologist: Research has shown that a weakened immune(41 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ACancer patients can(7 more words not shown)
- BDisease is not(5 more words not shown)
- CStress can weaken(3 more words not shown)
- DDiscussing one's condition(8 more words not shown)
- EStress is a(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Feeling less stressed sounds helpful. But how does that get us to the immune system?
The psychologist starts with a finding about weakened immune systems and cancer vulnerability. The support groups are then credited with reducing stress. Those are two different pieces of information. To use the first finding as a reason to think the groups have therapeutic value, we need a connection between stress and immunity.
We might also wonder how these effects matter once someone already has cancer, rather than just before the disease develops. But there is an earlier gap: the passage hasn't said that stress can weaken the immune system at all. Imagine that the groups reduce stress while leaving immunity entirely unaffected. The stated research would then give us no reason for this therapeutic claim.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, look for the link that lets stress reduction matter to the immune-system reasoning. We don't need a promise that support groups cure cancer.
Working the answers
- A
Learning to function under extreme stress isn't the proposed mechanism. The groups reduce stress. The argument doesn't require patients to learn to cope with extreme levels, or even assume that their stress was extreme in the first place.
- B
The psychologist challenges a purely biochemical view, not every biochemical component of disease. Indeed, the argument relies on the immune system. Mental stress and physical processes could interact; disease need not become an entirely nonbiochemical phenomenon for the reasoning to work.
- CCorrect
Stress can weaken the immune system. This supplies the missing connection: if stress can contribute to weakened immunity, reducing stress can remove a possible contributor to that problem. Without that link, the finding about immunity and cancer sits disconnected from the support groups' stated benefit.
- D
Reducing stress doesn't require eliminating it. A patient could remain worried while feeling substantially less stressed after participating. The psychologist's modest claim that the groups may have therapeutic value doesn't depend on discussion removing every bit of stress.
- E
This runs from a weakened immune system to stress: the stress is a symptom of the immune problem. The argument needs stress to be capable of affecting immunity. Reducing a symptom doesn't automatically improve the condition that produced it. Both directions could conceivably occur, so E needn't destroy the argument; it simply isn't the causal connection this reasoning requires.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.