Q13 - Bethany: Psycologists have discovered

[zhwpaul67]

The conclusion is about children but Answer C is related to adults. Please explain.

Thx!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure, happy to help!

The argument concludes that we should direct efforts to identifying children likely to have nightmares. The evidence for this is that nightmare prone children are especially likely to have nightmares as adults.

We're then asked to find a principle that would most justify the argument. If we were to follow the principle in answer choice (C) that psychologists should do everything they can to minimize the number of adults troubled by nightmares, the argument's conclusion would be strongly supported.

The argument's conclusion is one thing the psychologists could do to minimize the number of adults who are troubled by nightmares. Even if the psychologists cannot teach the technique to the children who suffer from nightmares, they may be able to teach those same people when they become adults. But the psychologists would first need to identify someone as having nightmares before they could teach that person to substitute dreams.

Let's just take a quick look at the incorrect answers.

(A) is out of scope. Understanding why some children have nightmares and others do not does not support the conclusion that psychologists should identify all of those children who have do actually have nightmares.
(B) is out of scope. We don't actually know that we can teach the technique to the children. We know that we can teach the technique to adults.
(D) undermines the conclusion.
(E) is out of scope. The psychologists are not looking to teach the technique to children unlikely to have nightmares as adults.

Hope that helps!

[opulence2001]

Hi,

Could someone please explain why C is the correct answer over E?

Thanks in advance

[opulence2001]

Hi,

I'm still a little confused as to why C is correct and E is not.

If we go with C, yes we do whatever it takes to minimize adults with nightmares, but that does not necessarily mean that psychologists should direct their efforts towards children with nightmares. We could just as well target all kids (since being unlikely to have nightmares doesn't exclude you from having them as an adult), and all for the good of the principle expressed in C.

I chose E because it explicitly says that we should not target kids who are not prone to nightmares. Hence, it reinforces the conclusion that psychologists should direct their efforts this way.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Remember, you have to justify the conclusion that psychologists should take some action. Answer choice (C) gives us this direction to action. Answer choice (E) tells us what psycholgists shouldn't do.

Do you see that distinction between the answer choices? That's what you'd use to make that final elimination once you're down to (C) and (E).

[tzyc]

Still have a question...
The conclusion says "...so that these children can be taught the technique for replacing their nightmares with pleasant dreams", so it sounds like the conclusion is about children...and I chose (B), although I thought it should be said "All psychological technique that can be successfully taught to an adult can also be successfully taught to a child"...
Isn't the conclusion focus on children?

Thank you

[ilia.medovikov]

Still have a question...
The conclusion says "...so that these children can be taught the technique for replacing their nightmares with pleasant dreams", so it sounds like the conclusion is about children...and I chose (B), although I thought it should be said "All psychological technique that can be successfully taught to an adult can also be successfully taught to a child"...
Isn't the conclusion focus on children?

Thank you

Hello tz_straberry,

I think that to clearly understand the underlining logic behind ans.choice (c), we need to pay close attention to the core of the argument and we also need to identify the assumption made by the author.

The only premise that author offers as direct support for the conclusion is that "Studies have found that nightmare prone children are especially likely to suffer from nightmares as adults". In short, the core is: because night prone children are especially likely to suffer from nightmares as adults, we can conclude that they should be taught the technique.

So what does the author needs to assume here? One necessary assumption is that teaching children the technique would make them less likely to suffer from nightmares as adults. If we negate this assumption - teaching children the technique would not make them less likely to suffer from nightmares as adults - then the author's conclusion becomes unsupported by the premise and ultimately the argument falls apart.

Next, our task is to strengthen the conclusion that psychologists should identify nightmare-prone children and teach them the technique. In any question that requires us to strengthen the conclusion, information presented in the stimulus, including the assumption made by the author, is taken as true. With this in mind, answer answer choice (c) strengthens the conclusion because when it is combined with the author's assumption, the argument looks as follows:

Necessary assumption/Unstated Premise: Teaching children the technique would make them less likely to suffer from nightmares as adults.
(C)/New Premise: psychologists should do everything they can to minimize the number of adults troubled by nightmares.
Conclusion: Thus psychologists should direct efforts towards identifying nightmare-prone children and teaching them the technique.

As you can see once you combine (c) with author's assumption, it becomes a lot clearer how (c) strengthens the argument.

I hope this helps

[steves]

I got hung up here on the author's assumption as described by Ilia. I did not recall learning that we could or had to presume any necessary assumptions, and I do recall a similar question where the need to assume the effectiveness for both children and adults was key to the correct answer. I thought a principle was a more general version of an assumption--I.e., it looked here that we were being asked something similar to finding an assumption to strengthen the conclusion. So I was looking for something along the lines of the reverse of (B), but did not see it among the choices. I understand that (C) makes the case for doing something, but it seemed very weak since it did not provide the necessary assumption.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post, Steves!

The assumption you and Ilia point to – that teaching children the technique would make them less likely to suffer from nightmares as adults – is the first assumption I saw, too. However, it is not the ONLY assumption here. A second assumption, which (C) points to, is that scientists should try to help nightmare-plagued adults.

It’s ok that our right answer does not address both assumptions, since this is not a sufficient assumption question. Rather, we are looking for the principle that simply helps the conclusion along.

[cynthiaemesibe]

I understand why C is the better answer choice now. However, I am having a difficult time eliminating choice D. Can someone explain why D is no good?

[crocca]

What is the question type for the question??

I thought it is a "supporting principle" and thus sought out the answer that would completely bridge the gap between support and conclusion. The gap I saw is that: why would the techniques that work on adults work on children? Answer choice B did not gave me the answer in reverse (which I realize is not correct), but I couldn't see any other choice that fulfilled the task of a "supporting principle".

[huskybins]

C is very easily misunderstood at first glance by reading "minimize the number of adults troubled by ...". We may think teaching the currently suffered adults of such replacement trick is the ONLY way to minimize the number of adult sufferers, but what C actually refers to is much broader: if teaching kids of the above replacement trick can cure their similar nightmare-prone disease, then doing so may ALWAYS help greatly minimize the number of adults "troubled by chronic nightmares" -- such adults may also have been afflicted by nightmares since their very young age even as a kid.

By understanding that curing the current kid sufferers can also help minimize the overall adult sufferers, we can reasonably understand why B wants to "direct efforts towards" the young sufferers in her conclusion.