PrepTest 151, Section 3, Question 10
Physician: Clinical psychologists who are not also doctors(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AClinical psychologists who(13 more words not shown)
- BDoctors without training(11 more words not shown)
- CNo one without(15 more words not shown)
- DThe training in(21 more words not shown)
- EClinical psychologists should(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More training isn't automatically required training.
The physician says clinical psychologists without medical degrees shouldn't prescribe psychiatric medication. Why not? The reason offered is that their education in the relevant subjects lasts only a few hundred hours, while medical doctors receive years of it.
I'll accept that difference. But why does it establish the right cutoff? Perhaps a few hundred hours is enough for the task; perhaps it isn't. We aren't told. Asking whether an additional several hundred hours teaches more is different from asking whether a person must complete that training before being permitted to prescribe.
What we’re looking for
To support the physician's restriction, I'd look for a rule making years of education in these fields a requirement. Then the limited training described for the psychologists would explain why they shouldn't be allowed to prescribe.
Working the answers
- A
This permits psychologists who also have medical degrees to prescribe. The conclusion concerns the psychologists who don't have those degrees. Giving permission to one group doesn't by itself deny permission to another; A leaves the target group unresolved.
- B
This restricts doctors who lack clinical-psychology training. Our argument restricts clinical psychologists who lack the medical training described. B changes both the group being assessed and the missing qualification, so it doesn't establish the physician's conclusion.
- CCorrect
This makes years of training in neuroscience, physiology, and pharmacology a requirement for prescribing psychiatric medication. The psychologists described have only a few hundred hours in those fields. C connects that shortfall to the conclusion that they should not be allowed to prescribe. The argument needs the training to be required, not merely useful or more extensive.
- D
This says the medical-degree training is enough to qualify a doctor. That doesn't make it the only way to qualify or establish that someone with less training must be excluded. To support the conclusion, we need to rule out prescribing without the years of training. A rule granting permission to those who have it doesn't do that.
- E
Recommending more education for psychologists doesn't establish a ban on prescribing before they receive it. We could think further training is desirable while still permitting them to prescribe under their current qualifications. C states the missing restriction; E stops at saying they should receive the training.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.