Q12 - Researcher: A number of studies

[bradleygirard]

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this question/problem but here goes.
I can for the most part figure out why the four incorrect answers are incorrect, but I see a problem with the correct answer, and maybe someone can help me out a bit here. The gist of it is that the answer seems to broaden the scope, which does not necessarily make the argument weaker. Here is an analogy that I was kicking around;

A number of studies have shown that on average, cities that adapt a short term economic restructuring show similar levels of improvement regardless of which theory they apply. So any improvement in short term economic restructuring must be the result of some aspect or aspects of restructuring that are common to all economic restructuring, for example the interest the municipality shows in the city's economy.

the correct answer would then state something along the lines of;
The methods by which the studies measured whether the cities economies approved primarily concerned immediate relief, and failed to address other types of improvement.

I would imagine the researcher's response to be "so what? I am not talking about long term improvement, I am merely saying that there is something in this short term restructuring that gives relief. Perhaps it may not address the social security issue, but that doesnt matter, my argument has focused on the short term. "
I dont understand how one can weaken the argument by expanding the parameters, and then attacking the fact that the argument doesnt live up to this new (seemingly arbitrary) scope. I would actually call this a disingenuous argument strategy.
Any help would be great, thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I really liked your analogy. It proved to me that you had given this some serious thought. What I like about your analogy is that the reasoning behind it is perfectly sound. The researcher could validly question the supposed undermining claim.

However, they tricked you into focusing on the wrong concern. Short-term psychotherapy vs. long-term psychotherapy is not implied by answer choice (A). Answer choice (A) is describing the possibility that there are other kinds of improvement (other than symptom relief) that could result from short-term psychotherapy that the studies failed to measure. In which case, the clients in short-term psychotherapy might not all show similar levels of improvement - and this difference could be the result of some aspect not common to all therapy.

(A) correctly identifies a potential weakness. The chances that the concern addressed in answer choice (A) occurs are unlikely but if it did the conclusion reached would have a serious cloud hanging over it.
(B) is meant to reinforce the perception that the issue is short-term vs. long-term psychotherapy. That is not the issue.
(C) compares psychotherapy with other kinds of treatments. The conclusion does not compare these two terms, so answer choice (C) does not relate a weakness in reaching the conclusion.
(D) is irrelevant. Even if those techniques differed, there could still be a common characteristic amongst all therapists.
(E) is similar to answer choice (D). The fact that there are differences amongst therapists does not undermine the notion that there are common aspects to all therapy.

[dan]

12. (A)
Question type: Weaken the Conclusion
In most weaken questions, the argument is weakened by breaking or exposing a flawed connection (assumption) between the evidence and the conclusion. In this case, the correct answer weakens the argument simply by breaking down a premise involved.

If answer (A) is assumed to be true, it would mean that these clients DO NOT have similar levels of improvement, and therefore the argument would be significantly weaker.

(B) is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
(C) supports the idea that different types of counseling are equally effective, and so therefore does not weaken the argument.
(D) emphasizes differences in types of treatments, but these differences do not weaken the argument because the treatments could all, even though they are different in many ways, have significant characteristics in common.
(E) emphasizes differences in types of treatments, but these differences do not weaken the argument because the treatments could all, even though they are different in many ways, have significant characteristics in common.

[mrudula_2005]

12. (A)
Question type: Weaken the Conclusion
In most weaken questions, the argument is weakened by breaking or exposing a flawed connection (assumption) between the evidence and the conclusion. In this case, the correct answer weakens the argument simply by breaking down a premise involved.

If answer (A) is assumed to be true, it would mean that these clients DO NOT have similar levels of improvement, and therefore the argument would be significantly weaker.

(B) is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
(C) supports the idea that different types of counseling are equally effective, and so therefore does not weaken the argument.
(D) emphasizes differences in types of treatments, but these differences do not weaken the argument because the treatments could all, even though they are different in many ways, have significant characteristics in common.
(E) emphasizes differences in types of treatments, but these differences do not weaken the argument because the treatments could all, even though they are different in many ways, have significant characteristics in common.

I don't get it. How does A stating that the methods by which the studies measured whether clients improved primarily concerned immediate symptom relief not indicate real levels of improvement? to me immediate symptom relief absolutely is some type of improvement. so what is it about immediate symptom relief that indicates that it isn't to you? i'm totally missing the whole boat here...any help would be appreciated.

thanks!

[linzru86]

Doesn't it have to do with the fact that the conclusion says "so ANY (type of) client improvement in short term psychotherapy must be the result of some aspect or aspects that are common to all psychotherapies" While if A were true, the evidence offered in support of this conclusion would only be talking about ONE kind of client improvement (immediate symptom relief) so you can't say that any and thus every kind of client improvement would necessarily be because of an aspect that is similar to all psychotherapies??

[mrudula_2005]

Doesn't it have to do with the fact that the conclusion says "so ANY (type of) client improvement in short term psychotherapy must be the result of some aspect or aspects that are common to all psychotherapies" While if A were true, the evidence offered in support of this conclusion would only be talking about ONE kind of client improvement (immediate symptom relief) so you can't say that any and thus every kind of client improvement would necessarily be because of an aspect that is similar to all psychotherapies??

thanks a ton linzru...i can clearly see that - that has to be it. thanks!!!!

[cyruswhittaker]

So basically what A is pointing out is that the argument goes from "similair level of improvement" to "any client improvement" and is thus saying that there could be other forms of improvement not addressed, and that hence would be attributed to aspects of the therapy distinct to the kind used.

Is this correct?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Yep, you got it!

[interestedintacos]

In most weaken questions, the argument is weakened by breaking or exposing a flawed connection (assumption) between the evidence and the conclusion. In this case, the correct answer weakens the argument simply by breaking down a premise involved.

If answer (A) is assumed to be true, it would mean that these clients DO NOT have similar levels of improvement, and therefore the argument would be significantly weaker.

Actually, this one wasn't that mythical premise attacker weaken question, as linzru86 and others subsequently pointed out.

Answer choice A doesn't negate the fact that improvements were shown. It points out that the improvements were limited to one category and didn't address other types of improvements. The argument nevertheless is about "ANY" improvement. Choice A, like a typical weakener, attacks the assumption that the study results could be used to make a conclusion about ANY improvement.

Good job by linzru86 to first point out what's really up here.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Actually, this one wasn't that mythical premise attacker weaken question, as linzru86 and others subsequently pointed out.

There's only one premise in this argument so it should be pretty simple to test whether the answer choice functions by undermining a premise. Let's take a look.

The premise is that "clients in short-term psychotherapy show similar levels of improvement regardless of the kind of psychotherapy they receive."

Answer choice (A) asserts that the methods by which the studies measured whether clients improved ... failed to address other important kinds of improvement."

Wouldn't that suggest that the clients in short-term psychotherapy might not have all had the same level of improvement? What do you think interestedintacos?

[gotomedschool]

This one was still kind of confusing to me but I think that last post cleared it up...

So the premise is that the clients in short term physcotherapy all showed similar levels of improvement.


A) Shows that the study measured client improvement ONLY in terms of immediate symptom relief, failing to take into account other ways that they could have improved. So while it is true that all of the clients in short term physcotherapy might have exhibited immediate symptom relief, those in intense short term physcotherapy showed immediate symptom relief + increased stamina + morale improvement etc.? hence weakening the conclusion that any client improvement is a sign that all physcotherapies help in the same way?

[shirando21]

I really liked your analogy. It proved to me that you had given this some serious thought. What I like about your analogy is that the reasoning behind it is perfectly sound. The researcher could validly question the supposed undermining claim.

However, they tricked you into focusing on the wrong concern. Short-term psychotherapy vs. long-term psychotherapy is not implied by answer choice (A). Answer choice (A) is describing the possibility that there are other kinds of improvement (other than symptom relief) that could result from short-term psychotherapy that the studies failed to measure. In which case, the clients in short-term psychotherapy might not all show similar levels of improvement - and this difference could be the result of some aspect not common to all therapy.

(A) correctly identifies a potential weakness. The chances that the concern addressed in answer choice (A) occurs are unlikely but if it did the conclusion reached would have a serious cloud hanging over it.
(B) is meant to reinforce the perception that the issue is short-term vs. long-term psychotherapy. That is not the issue.
(C) compares psychotherapy with other kinds of treatments. The conclusion does not compare these two terms, so answer choice (C) does not relate a weakness in reaching the conclusion.
(D) is irrelevant. Even if those techniques differed, there could still be a common characteristic amongst all therapists.
(E) is similar to answer choice (D). The fact that there are differences amongst therapists does not undermine the notion that there are common aspects to all therapy.

Matt, there is a type of weaken question about survey/study. one way to weaken the argument is by proving the survey data, study result is biased, untrustworthy.

Does this one fall into this category? Just like PT 37, LR1, Q14.

[timmydoeslsat]

Does this one fall into this category? Just like PT 37, LR1, Q14.

Terrific work. These two questions are similar, so you are exactly right. The study in the argument provided very good grounds for its conclusion. Attacking how the study was performed to obtain the results is an excellent weakener.

[shirando21]

Does this one fall into this category? Just like PT 37, LR1, Q14.

Terrific work. These two questions are similar, so you are exactly right. The study in the argument provided very good grounds for its conclusion. Attacking how the study was performed to obtain the results is an excellent weakener.

Thanks, Timmy. I have to reinforce this type. This is one for the very few weaken questions that I miss now.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thanks Timmy! And good news shirando21, this sort of issue doesn't come up very often. I just went looking through 100 examples of Weaken questions looking for one or two I could offer as additional examples to practice. While the issue of studies and surveys showed up all the time, there wasn't a single case in that set of 100 questions that matched the same issue.

[nbayar1212]

I just had a thought about AC D that I think is worth sharing:

AC D isn't wrong because it would leave the possibility open that short-term therapies still have some aspect of the therapy in common. I would argue that the presence of the word "dramatically" in the AC makes it a pretty clear weakening AC with respect to the conclusion.

Rather AC D is wrong because it is concerned with "therapists practicing different kinds of psychotherapy" - which is not within the scope of the stimulus. This is because the stimulus is concerned with a specific kind of psychotherapy i.e. short-term, in both the premise and conclusion. AC D, however, makes a claim about the techniques that therapists use when they practice different kinds of psychotherapy. This AC is simply not responsive to the claim about short-term psychotherapies which is why it doesn't weaken the stimulus.

[kyuya]

Premise: studies have suggested that short term psychotherapy show similar levels of improvement regardless of the kind of psychotherapy they receive

Conclusion: Therefore, it must be a common aspect of all psychotherapies .

(A) The correct answer.

If other important kinds of improvement were ignored, then this draws into question the idea that they show "similar levels of improvement" because they perhaps showed similar levels of improvement on an unimportant measure, but on all of the important measures varied drastically. This weakens the argument.

(B) This does nothing. We want to know about short term, but this is talking about long term. Its quite possible that long term is better. But that's not what we're after.

(C) This is consistent with the fact that there may be some aspect related to all psychotherapies that is beneficial in these short term results. Perhaps having someone to talk to is sufficient - and quality of psychotherapy means nothing.

(D) The techniques can vary drastically while simultaneously having a lot in common with one another. Consistent with the stimulus and therefore neutral.

(E) Again this seems pretty irrelevant. Perhaps experience with psychotherapy means nothing at all! Seems to be a random fact about psychotherapists in general.

[hayleychen12]

Still kind of confused by this type of Weaken question.

Form my understanding, the right answer to a Strengthen or Weaken question should be the one the booster/weaken the argument, not the premise or conclusion alone?

But in this question, the right answer is just attacking the premise...... Any help!! This question really makes me feel uneasy, and I'm now doubting all my understanding for Assumption family questions as a whole

[ohthatpatrick]

Your understanding is correct, 98% of the time. But if you do enough LSAT problems, you'll encounter some exceptions that don't seem to fit the typical style.

Specifically, there are a handful of Str/Weak questions that only function in terms of their ability to affect the relevance/trustworthiness of the evidence.

Here, we're not attacking the validity of the premise. It is still true that the study DID report similar benefits. We're just offering more detail about what the study was specifically measuring. In doing so, we realize that the author is overlooking some potentially significant differences between different types of psychotherapy.

Ultimately, this is still about assumptions the author is making in going from her evidence to her conclusion. She assumes that the study was conducted well enough to supply valid results, and she assumes that the results are broad enough in applicability to justify her very broad conclusion.

But I get what you're saying: it's weird to just go after the study and say "it sucked".

Technically, any time we're strengthening/weakening an argument, it's just like strengthening/weakening a lawyer's case.

If you were defending someone in court, you might attack opposing counsel's evidence, saying that it's untrustworthy / saying that its witness does not have expertise concerning the particular subject matter of the trial / etc.

When an argument/case is relying on a study as its lone support, then diminishing the trustworthiness of the study is dealing a severe blow to the case.

To see a similar Weaken question, check out this one about dopamine from test 44.
PT44, S2, Q20

[DPCTE4325]

Your understanding is correct, 98% of the time. But if you do enough LSAT problems, you'll encounter some exceptions that don't seem to fit the typical style.

Specifically, there are a handful of Str/Weak questions that only function in terms of their ability to affect the relevance/trustworthiness of the evidence.

Here, we're not attacking the validity of the premise. It is still true that the study DID report similar benefits. We're just offering more detail about what the study was specifically measuring. In doing so, we realize that the author is overlooking some potentially significant differences between different types of psychotherapy.

Ultimately, this is still about assumptions the author is making in going from her evidence to her conclusion. She assumes that the study was conducted well enough to supply valid results, and she assumes that the results are broad enough in applicability to justify her very broad conclusion.

But I get what you're saying: it's weird to just go after the study and say "it sucked".

Technically, any time we're strengthening/weakening an argument, it's just like strengthening/weakening a lawyer's case.

If you were defending someone in court, you might attack opposing counsel's evidence, saying that it's untrustworthy / saying that its witness does not have expertise concerning the particular subject matter of the trial / etc.

When an argument/case is relying on a study as its lone support, then diminishing the trustworthiness of the study is dealing a severe blow to the case.

To see a similar Weaken question, check out this one about dopamine from test 44.
PT44, S2, Q20

Patrick can you please go further and show us how you'd tackle this question using the anti conclusion method? From your other posts, you state that when using the anti-conclusion method, we have to work around premises with the structure [given that... how can we argue (anti conclusion)]

But I don't think that works for this question? Using this method I landed on D. I tried to argue "short term therapy improvements are NOT due to some shared aspects of all psychotherapy". And answer choice D made the most sense.

Can you show me please. Thank you!