PT 50, Sec 4, #12

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

PT 50, Sec 4, #12

Postby MissLucky » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:36 pm

can someone help me understand why and how A weakens this argument? I know it has to do with the fact that if the methods really were just measuring "immediate symptom relief" that doesn't constitute real improvement, right? if so, that begs the question, how is "immediate symptom relief" not a valid measure of improvement? how was I supposed to know that? when I think of symptom relief, I think, improvement.

thanks a lot guys!

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: PT 50, Sec 4, #12

Postby EarlCat » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:00 pm

MissLucky wrote:can someone help me understand why and how A weakens this argument? I know it has to do with the fact that if the methods really were just measuring "immediate symptom relief" that doesn't constitute real improvement, right? if so, that begs the question, how is "immediate symptom relief" not a valid measure of improvement? how was I supposed to know that? when I think of symptom relief, I think, improvement.

thanks a lot guys!


It's not about "real" improvement. Immediate symptom relief may be a valid measure of improvement, but the conclusion says any client improvement. You can't conclude something about any improvement based on a premise about only some types of improvement. Thus, a fact pointing out that the failure to address other types of improvement weakens the argument.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: PT 50, Sec 4, #12

Postby MissLucky » Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:51 pm

EarlCat wrote:
MissLucky wrote:can someone help me understand why and how A weakens this argument? I know it has to do with the fact that if the methods really were just measuring "immediate symptom relief" that doesn't constitute real improvement, right? if so, that begs the question, how is "immediate symptom relief" not a valid measure of improvement? how was I supposed to know that? when I think of symptom relief, I think, improvement.

thanks a lot guys!


It's not about "real" improvement. Immediate symptom relief may be a valid measure of improvement, but the conclusion says any client improvement. You can't conclude something about any improvement based on a premise about only some types of improvement. Thus, a fact pointing out that the failure to address other types of improvement weakens the argument.


oh wow, awesome explanation. THANK YOU! you're great!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, Google [Bot], nimbus cloud and 8 guests