LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#34860
Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus discusses “talk therapy,” which, as its name suggests, refers to therapy in which a patient discusses his or her psychological disorder with a trained therapist. This type of therapy, we are told, causes chemical changes in the brain that seem to correspond with improvements in behavior:
  • Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect

    Talk Therapy ..... :arrow: ..... Chemical Changes, Better Behavior

The author concludes that doctors will eventually be able to bring about the same behavioral improvements by changing the brain’s neurochemistry with pharmaceuticals as with talk therapy’s lengthy sessions:
  • Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect

    Pharmaceuticals ..... :arrow: ..... Chemical Changes, Better Behavior
In reaching the conclusion that pharmaceuticals will eventually be as good as therapy, the author is attributing the noted behavioral improvements entirely to the chemical changes that take place in the brain.

The stimulus is followed by an Assumption question, so the correct answer choice will provide an assumption that the author relies upon in reaching the conclusion that pharmacological intervention will eventually be able to take the place of talk therapy. To confirm the correct answer choice, apply the Assumption Negation Technique by logically negating, or taking away, the assumption, and noting the effects on the author’s argument; when negating a given assumption weakens an argument, it becomes clear that the argument relies upon that assumption.

Answer choice (A): This is not an assumption on which the author’s conclusion relies. To confirm this to be an incorrect answer choice, we can apply the Assumption Negation Technique, take away the assumption, and note whether the negated version weakens the author’s conclusion:
  • Not all neurochemical changes bring about psychological changes.
This is a pretty limited claim—basically, that some (that is, at least one) neurochemical changes do not bring about psychological changes. Even if this were the case, this would not weaken the author’s argument that pharmacological intervention will eventually bring about the same benefits as talk therapy—this conclusion does not require that every single chemical change be associated with psychological changes.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice; the author assumes that the chemical changes are the sole cause of the noted improvements in behavior—and that talk therapy is not a necessity in that equation. To confirm this as an assumption on which the author’s argument relies, we can negate, or take away, this choice and note whether the author’s argument suffers:
  • Behavioral improvements do not occur only through chemical changes.
This negated version weakens the author’s argument, which relies on the idea that pharmaceuticals can cause chemical changes and therefore replace talk therapy. If, as this negated version provides, the behavior changes require more than just chemical changes, it is less likely that pharmacological intervention will someday be able to replace talk therapy.

Answer choice (C): The author does not assume that talk therapy is ineffective, but rather that it can be replaced by pharmacological intervention. To confirm that this is not an assumption on which the author’s argument relies, we can logically negate the assumption to see whether the argument suffers as a result. The negated version of this answer choice would be:
  • Talk therapy has been effective in bringing about psychological change.
The negated version of this answer choice does not weaken the author’s conclusion about pharmacological intervention, so this cannot be an assumption that is required by the author’s argument.

Answer choice (D): The assumption presented here is that if neurochemistry is associated with improved behavior, then psychology and neuroscience will eventually be indistinguishable from one another. In the stimulus, the author’s conclusion is that behavior will eventually be able to be modified through pharmacological intervention alone—but that is not the same as claiming that psychology and neuroscience will eventually be the same thing.

Answer choice (E): This choice discusses the relative expense associated with different approaches to the treatment of psychological disorders, but that issue is not mentioned or alluded to in the stimulus; this cannot be an assumption on which the author’s argument relies. To confirm this answer choice as incorrect, we can apply Assumption Negation and note whether or not the argument from the stimulus is weakened. The negated version of this answer choice is as follows:

 
  • Direct intervention is not likely to be a less expensive way to deal with disorders.

This would have no effect on the author’s conclusion, confirming that the author’s argument does not require this choice’s assumption.
 agroves
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Aug 03, 2013
|
#11087
Hi,

Can please explain why AC B is correct? I am missing why improvement ONLY through neurochemistry is needed here.

Thanks!

Angela
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#11102
Hi Angela,

The argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise: Talk therapy works by producing chemical changes in the brain.

Premise: The chemical changes in the brain's neurochemistry correspond to improvements in behavior.

Conclusion: Drugs will ultimately be just as effective as talk therapy.

To see why answer choice (B) states an assumption, consider its logical opposite. If (B) is indeed an assumption, its logical opposite must weaken the conclusion:
  • Improvements in behavior through talk therapy do NOT occur only through chemical changes in the brain's neurochemistry.
If that were so, then drugs alone will probably not be as effective as talk therapy, because drugs work only through pharmacological intervention. The logical opposite of answer choice (B) weakens the argument, showing that answer choice (B) contains a statement necessary for the conclusion to be valid.

Hope this helps!
 agroves
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Aug 03, 2013
|
#11459
Thanks!
 ylikate
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: Aug 27, 2013
|
#11580
my prephrase for assumption was - any intervention (which will include pharmachological's) in brain's nerochemistry will lead to improvement in patient's behavior. This led me to choose A.

I don't understand why B is the correct AC. If I negate it - improvements in patient's behavior can occur by other means. This does not attack the conclusion. Just b/c other way to impact behavior is possible, it does not mean pharmachological intervention would not work. Pharma intervention can still be one of several ways to produce effects as traditional therapy.

Please help! what's wrong with my prephrase and/or with my negation of B? Thanks.

Kate
 David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2013
|
#11591
ylikate wrote:my prephrase for assumption was - any intervention (which will include pharmachological's) in brain's nerochemistry will lead to improvement in patient's behavior. This led me to choose A.

I don't understand why B is the correct AC. If I negate it - improvements in patient's behavior can occur by other means. This does not attack the conclusion. Just b/c other way to impact behavior is possible, it does not mean pharmachological intervention would not work. Pharma intervention can still be one of several ways to produce effects as traditional therapy.

Please help! what's wrong with my prephrase and/or with my negation of B? Thanks.

Kate
Hello (yli)kate,

My own prephrase was, "Maybe there's something besides the chemicals." And indeed, with B, "Improvements in a patient’s behavior produced by “talk” therapy occur only through chemical changes in the brain’s neurochemistry", i.e., there's nothing besides the chemicals, which idea attacked my prephrase that maybe talk therapy has something besides chemicals.
I'm not sure about the efficacy of your own prephrase: one (ridiculous) counterexample would be, "If someone drinks paint thinner, it'll help their brain chemistry." Paint thinner is probably a pretty dangerous "pharmocological chemical", so...maybe not *any* intervention will help.

About answer B, "If I negate it - improvements in patient's behavior can occur by other means. This does not attack the conclusion", you say. Well, maybe it does. From the stimulus, re "physicians will eventually be able to treat such patients as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain’s neurochemistry as through . . . traditional “talk” methods": that seems to assume that chemicals are the only thing that count, not other means. And answer choice B matches that: "Improvements in a patient’s behavior produced by “talk” therapy occur only through chemical changes in the brain’s neurochemistry", emphasis on "only".

Hope that helps,
David
User avatar
 Albertlyu
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: Jul 18, 2020
|
#82580
thanks, when reading stimulus, my instinct is this: if chemical changes---->pharmacological intervention is able to treat, which is the main gap that bounced out of my mind, and by choosing B we have to assume the above one is true, otherwise I think the conclusion could not be established? please can anyone share some insights? thank you
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#84423
That's certainly a part of it, Albert. The author assumes that if a process results in chemical changes in the brain, then drugs could be used to replicate those changes without going through that process. But for the author to claim that the drugs will have the same overall effect as the process, the author must additionally assume that the effects of the process are limited to only those chemical changes. So there are at least two assumptions here, and answer B is about just one of them.
User avatar
 Albertlyu
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: Jul 18, 2020
|
#84446
Adam Tyson wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:46 pm That's certainly a part of it, Albert. The author assumes that if a process results in chemical changes in the brain, then drugs could be used to replicate those changes without going through that process. But for the author to claim that the drugs will have the same overall effect as the process, the author must additionally assume that the effects of the process are limited to only those chemical changes. So there are at least two assumptions here, and answer B is about just one of them.
thank you Adam! I think there is another one: the chemical changes were indeed the improvements in patients' behaviors. the evidence simply said, "seem to".

An argument contains 3 flaws and the question asked the most implicit one. But I can see them much clearly now, thank you again for your help!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.