#14 - Critic: Many popular psychological theories are poor

[mcassidy1]

I don't understand the difference in answer choice B and E. I feel like they are saying the same thing so I found it hard to choose the correct answer.I thought the explanatory power was cancelled out by the phrase under consideration.

[James Finch]

Hi M. Cassidy,

The big issue with (E) is that the argument doesn't actually address whether the theories have explanatory power or not; instead, it points to the experimental success of the theories at treating patients as the reason that their purported lack of explanatory power is irrelevant. (B) is correct because in its vague way it encapsulates the reason one would use the theories' success at treatment as evidence for the conclusion that the theories' inelegance and lack of explanatory power is irrelevant: to show that the theories aren't actually worthless just because they aren't great theories, as they are quite successful at actually treating patients.

Hope this clears things up!

[lenihil]

Dear PowerScore,

Could you please clarify the structure of this argument? I can't tell which part is the conclusion.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi leni,

The first statement in the stimulus presents a claim that the author then (in a conclusion) dismisses the importance of. The "however" at the beginning of the second sentence is a critical structural signal that the author is about to transition to claims that the author wants to defend.

Claim: Many popular psychological theories are poor theories in that they are inelegant and do not help to dispel the mystery that surrounds our psyche.

Conclusion: This is not really important. (In other words, it's not important that these popular psychological theories are inelegant and do not help to dispel mystery surrounding our psyche.)

Why is it not important that these theories are inelegant and do not dispel mystery?

Premise: (Because...) The theories produce the right results: therapeutically, they tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

So the basic argument, restated, is: It is not important that many popular psychological theories are inelegant and do not help dispel mysteries, BECAUSE the theories tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

Let us know if this clears things up!

[parytownson]

Hi leni,

The first statement in the stimulus presents a claim that the author then (in a conclusion) dismisses the importance of. The "however" at the beginning of the second sentence is a critical structural signal that the author is about to transition to claims that the author wants to defend.

Claim: Many popular psychological theories are poor theories in that they are inelegant and do not help to dispel the mystery that surrounds our psyche.

Conclusion: This is not really important. (In other words, it's not important that these popular psychological theories are inelegant and do not help to dispel mystery surrounding our psyche.)

Why is it not important that these theories are inelegant and do not dispel mystery?

Premise: (Because...) The theories produce the right results: therapeutically, they tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

So the basic argument, restated, is: It is not important that many popular psychological theories are inelegant and do not help dispel mysteries, BECAUSE the theories tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

Let us know if this clears things up!

Hi Jeremy,

I had the same issue as Leni in that I did not understand the structure of this stimuli exactly. I was able, however, to rightly point out the conclusion and the claim the conclusion is refuting. But, it is the premise which the conclusion relies on that I just have a hard time understanding.

Is it that the critic is arguing that even if many popular psychological are inelegant and do not help dispel the mystery of the psyche, it need not matter because that is not what constitutes a psychological theory to be poor. Instead, a psychological theory is regarded as a poor theory if it fails to be more therapeutically effective than a different psychological theory; which in this case would be these theories that are more therapeutically effective than their more scientific rivals?

Thank you for the help!

[Robert Carroll]

pary,

That's pretty much it. There are popular psychological theories that have bad features (inelegance, failure to explain mysteries) and a good feature (better therapeutic success). The critic is saying that the bad features are unimportant and the good feature is important, so a proper analysis of the theories should come out in their favor.

Since therapeutic success is more important than elegance and psychological explanation, the author thinks those theories are fine ones. So the author is trying to use the evidence of the therapeutic success to override the conceded, but unimportant, negatives of the theories.

Robert Carroll

[olivjelly]

I also came down between B and D on this, but chose D. I still didn't understand why D had to be wrong after reading the previous explanations on here, but what ultimately helped me was realizing that D was wayy too strong of a claim to make about the stim. Just because the critic thinks that therapeutic success of a psych theory is a more important consideration than whether it is inelegant/dispels psyche mystery does not mean that they think it is "the most important aspect of scientific theories." Therefore, B gets at the role that the claim plays in the arg ,whereas D simply makes an undue valuation of the claim. Hope this is helpful to someone!

[Adam Tyson]

Well done, olivjelly! We know the author thinks producing good results is important, but we don't know what they think is MOST important. It's also too broad, in that the author is focused only on psychological theories, and we can't say what they would think about other kinds of scientific theories, like string theory in physics or the amyloid protein hypothesis in the study of Alzheimer's disease, for example.