PrepTest 141, Section 4, Question 4
Psychologist: Some have argued that Freudian psychotherapy is(53 more words not shown)
The reasoning technique employed by(11 more words not shown)
- Aintroducing a principle(10 more words not shown)
- Bquestioning the truth(3 more words not shown)
- Cpresenting an analogous(9 more words not shown)
- Dclaiming that the(7 more words not shown)
- Esuggesting that a(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does taking longer mean the treatment works better? I'd want to know what it achieves, not just how much effort it takes.
That's the problem the psychologist exposes. The defenders of Freudian psychotherapy point to its difficulty and duration as reasons to call it the most effective. The psychologist takes that reasoning somewhere else: a repair shop puts a great deal of work into cars and keeps them for a long time, so it must have the best repair technique.
We wouldn't accept that conclusion just from those facts. Perhaps the extra time reflects excellent, careful work; perhaps it reflects an inefficient process. The amount of work and time alone doesn't settle effectiveness. Carrying the same reasoning over to cars makes the gap easier to see.
What we’re looking for
Notice what this does and doesn't show. The therapy could still be the most effective for some other reason. The psychologist is challenging the offered justification, not proving that the therapy fails. The question asks for that technique: use a parallel argument whose result readers wouldn't accept to expose the weakness in the original reasoning.
Working the answers
- A
The psychologist doesn't give a competing general rule, such as 'The fastest treatment is always best.' Instead, the passage offers another argument that uses the same kind of reasoning. An illustrative comparison is different from introducing a principle that contradicts the original one.
- B
No one denies that the therapy is difficult or time consuming. The challenge is that those facts don't establish superior effectiveness. Questioning what follows from a premise isn't the same as questioning whether the premise is true.
- CCorrect
The repair-shop argument is the analogy. Extensive work and time stand in for the therapy's difficulty and duration, and the claimed superiority of the repairs stands in for superior therapeutic effectiveness. The psychologist presents that parallel conclusion as something readers would reject, thereby undermining the reasoning used to reach both conclusions.
- D
Keep track of who uses the analogy. The psychologist introduces the repair-shop comparison. The argument being criticized doesn't reason from a comparison at all; it goes from difficulty and time to effectiveness. The psychologist isn't exposing an analogy already used by the therapy's defenders.
- E
Nobody switches a cause and an effect. The dispute concerns whether time and effort establish effectiveness. There is no argument that one event caused another followed by a response saying the causal direction runs the other way.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.