#13 - Bethany: Psychologists have discovered a technique for

[PowerSteve]

Hi! Regarding question number thirteen from the first logical reasoning section of the December '09 LSAT, I had a problem identifying choice C as the correct answer. I had narrowed down the choices to C and E but ultimately went with E. I understand that the conclusion of the stimulus essentially says two things: 1) "psychologists should direct efforts toward identifying nightmare-prone children" and 2) the intent of the first part of the conclusion is "so that these children can be taught the technique for replacing their nightmares with pleasant dreams."

I am fully aware that answer choice E neglects the second part of the conclusion, which is why I was hesitant to select it. However, I took issue with answer choice C because my thought is that if the psychologists were to "do everything they can to minimize the number of adults troubled by chronic nightmares," as choice C indicates, then they shouldn't necessarily restrict the amount of children to teach the technique for replacing their nightmares with pleasant dreams to. It would seem to me that if the psychologists were to "do everything they can..." they would attempt to teach the technique to all children. If either the question stimulus or answer choice C stipulated that it would not be possible to teach the technique to all children, then I would accept answer choice C as a good answer. However, without such a stipulation I believe there exists an assumption that would be necessary, in addition to choice C, to justify the conclusion in this particular problem. What is the flaw in my thinking?

~Steve

[Steve Stein]

Hi, and thanks for your question. Let's try to keep it simple if possible:

Premise:Doctors have found an effective technique for curing nightmares in adults.

Premise: Kids with nightmares are likely to become adults with nightmares.

Conclusion: Doctors should try to identify nightmare-prone kids to teach them the effective technique.

The quetion asks for the choice that most justifies the author's conclusion--in other words, the choice that strengthens the conclusion that they should try to identify nightmare-prone children.
If, as provided by answer choice C, doctors should indeed do all that they can to minimize the number of adult nightmare sufferers, then that strengthens the author's conclusion.

Answer choice E specifies that some children should not learn the technique (those unlikely to have bad dreams as adults). This doesn't really affect the author's conclusion about identifying kids who have bad dreams in order to teach the technique to them.

Let me know whether this makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Thanks for the response Steve. I still have a problem with choice C, though. As I mentioned in my original post, it seems to me that if the doctors were to do everything they can to minimize the number of adult nightmare sufferers, then they in fact should not "try to identify nightmare-prone children," but rather should teach the technique to all children.

It seems that in order for choice C to strengthen the conclusion, there would have to be an assumption that it is not possible for the doctors to teach the technique to all children. If this assumption does not exist, then wouldn't choice C indicate that the doctors ought to teach all of the children the technique, therefore not needing to identify the nightmare-prone children as the conclusion suggests?

I'm not arguing that choice E is correct. I just have a problem understanding how choice C strengthens the conclusion. I'm assuming that for some reason I am not justified in believing that if the doctors were to do everything they can, then they would attempt to treat all children (therefore not needing to identify the nightmare-prone ones). However, I think that is a very reasonable implication of the doctors doing everything they can.

~Steve

[Steve Stein]

Hey Steve,

Thanks for your response--interesting question.

You made an important point in your last message: what is "reasonable" in the doctors' doing all that they can to prevent adult nightmares?

Should the doctors be doing housecalls to sing bad dreamers to sleep? That would be unreasonable, of course--overkill.

Should they be teaching every single child the technique? What if the technique takes months to learn, and only 3% of children have nightmares? Then teaching every child the technique would seem like overkill as well.

It comes down to what is reasonable, as you alluded to, and when it comes to what the doctors might be expected to do, and it's a pretty big leap from identifying children who might benefit from the technique, to teaching it to every single child.

Let me know whether that makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Hey Steve,

Thanks for your response. The scenario of the doctors singing bad dreamers to sleep is quite funny, though I do agree with you that it would be overkill. I don't necessarily think attempting to teach every child, on the other hand, would necessarily be overkill. Under the altered circumstances that you created, yes, it would seem overkill as well.

However, the stimulus gives no reason to support the type of circumstances you proposed any more than the following circumstances: the technique, known as the "think happy thoughts" technique, takes about five minutes to teach, and about 80% of children have nightmares. If these circumstances existed, then it certainly would not seem overkill for the doctors to attempt to teach the technique to all children (perhaps through school assemblies or other means).

This is why I stated in my original post, "If either the question stimulus or answer choice C stipulated that it would not be possible to teach the technique to all children, then I would accept answer choice C as a good answer. However, without such a stipulation I believe there exists an assumption that would be necessary, in addition to choice C, to justify the conclusion in this particular problem."

Looking back at the question stem now, however, I see that I made the mistake of seeing the word "justify" and thinking that this was a justify the conclusion problem, when in fact it is a strengthen problem. This still doesn't make answer choice C much more palatable to me, though I suppose that it suggests the correct answer does not need to be as airtight. Thanks again for your help!

~Steve

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response--I think the point that were dealing a strengthen question makes this much more straightforward.

Should we try to identify children with nightmares?

If we believe that we should do all that we can to avoid nightmares in adults, then this would certainly strengthen the case for identification of children with nightmares, to teach the technique, and ideally avoid their eventually becoming adults with nightmares.

Let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Sorry for the delayed response Steve. I've been trying not to spend too much time on LSAT stuff this week... Anyway, I'm just not a fan of this question, but I thank you for helping with it.

~Steve

[Nina]

I can barely enough understand why C is correct, but how about E? because "psychologists cannot teach the technique to children who do not need it", they have to "identify the nightmare-prone children" to make sure that they don't teach the technique to the wrong ones?

Thanks a lot!

[Nikki Siclunov]

The author argues that nightmare-prone children should be taught the same technique as nightmare-prone adults are, because such children are especially likely to suffer from nightmares as adults. Also, the technique does work (when used on adults).

(C) helps the conclusion by providing an imperative that, if true, bolsters the author's recommendation. If psychologists should do everything they can to minimize the number of adults suffering from nightmares, then perhaps they should use the above-mentioned technique on children.

(E) contains a statement akin to a Mistaken Reversal. The argument implies the following conditional relationship:

Children likely to suffer from nightmares Teach the technique

(E), however, argues that children who are unlikely to suffer from nightmares as adults (i.e. children who are not suffering from nightmares today) should not be taught the technique:

Children NOT likely to suffer from nightmares NOT Teach the technique

This does not help justify the conclusion that some children can be effectively taught the technique in question.

[Nina]

Hey Nikki,

Thank you very much for your detailed response and precise analysis. It makes so much sense to me!