Q13 - While it was once believed that

[geverett]

Question: Psychoses is best treated by biochemical (medicine) means. This is conclusive proof that psychoses is caused by some sort of purely organic conditions.

Conclusion: Psychoses is caused by purely organic conditions

Evidence: Psychoses is best treated by biochemical means.

The author is basically saying that based on the treatment that is best for psychoses we can then infer the sole cause of psychoses.

Prephrase: Saying that you can infer the sole cause of something is a pretty bold statement in and of itself. Maybe there is another factor that also causes psychoses even if it contributes just a little bit.

(A) "can be caused or exacerbated by environmental factors." This is what I was looking for. Maybe environmental factors or something other then biochemical factors plays a role in causing psychoses.
(B) We only know about the more serious forms of mental disturbances. This answer choice is too broad and ambiguous when it opens its scope up by just saying "mental disturbances." Is that some mental disturbances? All mental disturbances? We don't know as the answer choice is too vague.
(C) This could be true, but we don't know and it certainly isn't a flaw in the argument. This answer choice refers to "nonpsychological organic illnesses" when the stimulus is clearly talking about illnesses of the mind which are psychological. This answer choice would classify as out of scope.
(D) This almost would classify as a sufficient assumption if only it said "the causes of any medical condition can be inferred to be organic if the best treament can be determined to be biochemical or medicinal means." However, it does not say that and the way it is written in it's current form could only serve to be an assumption that would strengthen the argument in it's current form which is not what we want. We want to find a flaw in the argument.
(E) This answer choice relates to neuroses which is caused by environmental conditions. While the author does talk about neuroses it is only used as background information to draw his conclusion regarding psychoses and other serious mental disturbances caused by purely organic factors. As such, his conclusion does not address neuroses so this answer choice would qualify as being irrelevant.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thought this was awesome but I would like to add my understanding of the question, maybe furthering some understanding for others. In my opinion, this is a fairly difficult argument because of its "clunkiness." There is a lot going on and it is all happening in somewhat of a weird order.

(E) I don't think that we should discount this answer choice just because it hints at neuroses. After all, the correct answer hints at neuroses too! I think that (E) is wrong because it is much too vague. We don't know anything about these "organic factors." From what we know, these organic factors could have nothing to do with anything being discussed. Also, being "partially responsible" for neuroses could mean it does have something to do with environmental factors. Yet we don't even know if this is the same "organic factor" that causes psychoses. There is just way too much up in the air with this answer choice.

I do have a question about (A) though.

(A) is stating that the very organic conditions that causes psychoses could be caused by environmental factors. This would mean that psychoses very well does have something to do with the environmental factors. After all...

Environmental factors → Organic condition → Psychoses. Thus, E → P! This links them up perfectly and shows us the possibility that the argument failed to consider!

Yet isn't (A) still assuming the validity conclusion? The conclusion is saying that Organic condition → Psychoses. Yet isn't this the very thing we are supposed to question? This answer choice definitely weakens the other part of the conclusion by giving a possible reason why environmental factors are linked with psychoses but I just don't know how I feel about this one. Thanks.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Excellent question, WaltGrace1983, and some lovely wrong answer analysis all around!

Let's talk for a second about what flaws really are, and how they relate to the rest of the assumption family. On a fundamental level, arguments are flawed because they assume things. When a flaw question is phrased as "the argument is flawed because it fails to consider the possibility that.....", the part that follows might be thought of as a negated necessary assumption.

Consider this example:

PREMISE: All boys with green eyes like sports.
CONCLUSION: Andy likes sports.

The argument is clearly assuming that Andy is a green-eyed boy. If Andy isn't, this argument is dead in the water. But a valid flaw answer might be simply "the argument is flawed because it fails to consider the possibility that Andy has brown eyes." That's okay, because there are really two separate necessary assumptions going on:

1) Andy is a boy
2) Andy has green eyes.

Now, a valid flaw answer could also be that the argument is flawed because it "fails to consider the possibility that Andy is a green-eyed girl." This answer would be accepting the part of the conclusion that contends that Andy is green-eyed, but that's ok - because it's still pointing out a flaw in the argument: the assumption that Andy is a boy. Whether Andy has green eyes or not, the assumption that Andy is a boy is still a problem.

So, flaw answers may only point out a single flaw in an argument that is flawed in multiple ways. That parallels the fact that there can be numerous necessary assumptions for any given argument.

So in this case, the argument assumes a connection between psychosis and organic factors - and that would be a valid flaw to raise. However, even if we accept the author's conclusion about a connection of some sort to organic factors, there is yet another assumption needed to get to the conclusion that environmental factors have nothing to do with psychosis. Another valid flaw to raise!

So, a flaw does not have to reject the entire conclusion - an answer that points out a flaw in getting to any meaningful part of the conclusion counts, even if along the way it accepts some other part of the conclusion!

Does that help clear things up a bit?