#12 - Critics have argued that because Freudianism holds

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point—FIB. The correct answer choice is (A)

This stimulus ends with a fill-in-the-blank, which generally means on the LSAT that we are dealing
with a Main Point question. The conclusion indicator at the start of the last sentence (“therefore”)
should help you recognize that you are being asked for the conclusion of the argument.

Whenever the author begins an argument by outlining someone else’s position (“critics have argued
that…”), you should anticipate the author’s direct disagreement with that position. In this case, the
Freudian belief that people’s unconscious desires can defeat their rational life plans is criticized
by some as incompatible with the rationalistic spirit of Western philosophical and psychological
thought. However, the author points out, Freudianism also holds that awareness of previously
unconscious desires can allow a person to avoid being defeated by them. The blank which follows
will likely go on to point out that the critics are therefore wrong in their claims of incompatibility.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the main point of
the stimulus is that there is not necessarily an incompatibility between Freudianism and Western
philosophical and psychological thought because answer choice (A) contains a statement that is the
exact opposite of the critics’ position, it must be the author’s main conclusion and is therefore the
correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B): The stimulus contains no evidence that Freudianism holds such a position, and
even if it did, that wouldn’t be the author’s main point.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus contains no evidence that Freudianism may be the beginning of a
new trend in Western philosophical thought. Remember—Main Point questions require an answer
that is provable by the information contained in the stimulus. Answers introducing new ideas cannot,
therefore, be correct.

Answer choice (D): It is one thing for the author to believe that psychoanalysis is not incompatible
with the rationalistic spirit of Western philosophical and psychological thought, and an entirely
different thing to claim that psychoanalysis provides one with a rational life plan. Given the author’s
disagreement with the critics, she might believe that a Freudian approach does not necessarily defeat
our attempts to follow rational life plans. However, this would merely be a subsidiary conclusion
of the argument, which, as a whole, is driven towards discrediting the claim that psychoanalysis is
incompatible with Western thought.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice goes too far. The author never claimed that Freudianism
reflects the rationalistic spirit of Western philosophical thought, let alone claimed that it does a better
job than any other psychological theory.

[jasmine24]

My question relates to a more fundamental concept about the relationship between premises and conclusions vs conditional logic.

Here's my abstracted interpretation of the stimulus: "Because [X fact about Freudianism], it is incompatible with [Y fact]. But [Z fact that tells us X fact is false]. So therefore NOT Y fact."

In conditional logic, we know that if A --> B, and /A, we cannot conclude /B. I know we do not have conditional logic in this stimulus. However, my understanding of the nature of premises and conclusions was based on conditional logic: if some premises are true and complete (all assumptions are accounted for), then some conclusion must follow. Is that right?

In the stimulus of this question, we are negating the premise. It would seem like a more appropriate conclusion might be "Freudianism does not NECESSARILY run counter to rationalistic mainstreams of Western philosophical and psychological thought." But can we really conclude that it for certain does not run counter? What if there are other conditions that remain true and do show that X fact is incompatible with Y?

I know the question stem asks us to identify which "MOST logically completes the argument". I agree A does this best, but I wanted to ask this question for clarification about underlying concepts.

Hope that's not too convoluted. Thanks very much for the help!

[Adam Tyson]

I think some of your confusion on this one may come from this slight misinterpretation of the stimulus, jasmine24:

But [Z fact that tells us X fact is false].

The third piece of information here - that you can learn to overcome the problem described by Freudianism = doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. It just means it can be dealt with.

Rather than break this down to symbols, let's abstract the argument with words. To me, it looks something like this:

This one theory says we have a problem, but another theory says we shouldn't have that problem, so some people think the theories are in conflict. But it turns out that the first theory also allows you to fix that problem.

What can we infer? That the theories might not conflict after all.

Answer A is the closest to that. Now, is it possible that they still conflict in some other way? Perhaps. But the point of a question like this, with a blank to be filled in, is for us to put ourselves in the author's place and say what they would say if they had just finished typing. It seems likely that this author is saying these things because they want to say that the two ideas are not in conflict with each other after all. It's the most natural, reasonable way to complete the argument, even if we don't absolutely agree with the author.

I wouldn't handle this with conditional reasoning, but perhaps we could look at it causally? The critics think this element of Freudianism causes a conflict with Western rationalism. But the author is showing us that this element does not cause that effect, because there is another element that helps to counter that cause. Thus, our conclusion is "we don't have that effect (the conflict)."