Q6 - Therapists who treat violent criminals

[Celeste757]

hello,

i don't get this one at all.

i think that conclusion is therapist cannot both respect confidentiality and be concerned for future victims
1) support is that reporting crimes would violate their confidentiality
2) support is that remaining silent leaves the risk out there

E is right, maybe because it shows that they could care about future victims (evidenced by persuading the violent criminal not to be violent again)? and therefore since its an example of them caring, it would weaken?

thank you!!

[funner567]

You are correct in stating that the conclusion is, "Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients' right to confidentiality and sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes."

We see that there is two parts to this conclusion. In order to weaken this argument we have to someway attack this conclusion by showing that the therapist can respect its client confidentiality while showing concern for victims of violent crimes simultaneously.

(A) - Just b/c it has been assigned by a judicial body doesnt mean that they are aware of all crimes and the therapists need not respect the violent criminals confidentiality.
(B) - Irrelevant in my opinion.
(C) - victims of future violent crimes? we are concerned with therapists looking out for the welfare of future victims and current violent criminal's confidentiality.
(D) - compensation? irrelevant.

In "E" we have the correct option. "A therapist who has gained a violent criminal's trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses." Through this answer choice the therapists are respecting the violent criminals confidentiality by not reporting any new offense while also showing concern future victims by persuading these criminals not to let history repeat itself.

We have to assume that these answer choices are true, as stated in the prompt of the question.

[giladedelman]

Wow, what a phenomenal explanation! 100% endorsed by yours truly.

[zainrizvi]

I feel like (B) isn't completely out of the ballpark. If the answer was reversed, that criminals were MORE likely to receive therapy in prison than out of prison, the argument would be weakened as remaining silent, most of the time, would not leaves the client out of prison.

Can anyone confirm the accuracy of this way of thinking?

[clare.ess]

To me it seems like A could weaken the argument. Since the therapists are assigned the job, we don't know anything about the therapist. It weakens by suggesting an alternative -- the therapist could have no interest in respecting their client's right to confidentiality if they didn't volunteer to work with violent criminals, for example.

[wj097]

I feel like (B) isn't completely out of the ballpark. If the answer was reversed, that criminals were MORE likely to receive therapy in prison than out of prison, the argument would be weakened as remaining silent, most of the time, would not leaves the client out of prison.

Can anyone confirm the accuracy of this way of thinking?

I see your point as this sort of situation may allow for respecting confidentiality as well as not harming welfare of future victim.
However, I feel the argument is less concerned with whether therapists can prevent future victim than whether therapists are SINCERELY CONCERNED, and to verify this we need further assumption...and also we don't know whether the criminals who receive therapy in prison will stay in prison FOREVER....so still feels like out of scope...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument states that therapists who report a client’s unreported crimes violate the client’s trust and therapists who remain silent leave the dangerous client free to commit more crimes. So, therapists cannot both be concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes and respect their client’s right to confidentiality.

Correct Answer
Answer choice (E) weakens this argument by showing how therapists can both respect their client’s right to confidentiality and demonstrate a concern for the safety of future victims of violent crimes.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is irrelevant to the two apparently opposing concerns.
(B) is irrelevant to whether therapists can demonstrate respect for the dueling concerns.
(C) may be true, but what about the concern for client confidentiality.
(D) is irrelevant to the issue of whether therapists can balance the dueling concerns in the argument.

[amil91]

To me it seems like A could weaken the argument. Since the therapists are assigned the job, we don't know anything about the therapist. It weakens by suggesting an alternative -- the therapist could have no interest in respecting their client's right to confidentiality if they didn't volunteer to work with violent criminals, for example.

The argument isn't about the therapists' interest. It is about their ability to do two things, not whether they care.