Justify/principle questions Forum

[Ocean64]

questions that ask you something like this:

"which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn?"

i have a specific question on PT56 LR1 Q20, the question about psychologists providing therapy on TV and radio, i was wondering...wouldn't answer choice C also allow the conclusion to follow, as well as the accredited answer E? how does one decide which one is better in this situation and why?

also if anyone has any suggestions or tips on how to approach questions like this, it would be MUCH appreciated!

[ggibelli]

questions that ask you something like this:

"which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn?"

i have a specific question on PT56 LR1 Q20, the question about psychologists providing therapy on TV and radio, i was wondering...wouldn't answer choice C also allow the conclusion to follow, as well as the accredited answer E? how does one decide which one is better in this situation and why?

also if anyone has any suggestions or tips on how to approach questions like this, it would be MUCH appreciated!

The way I see it, answer choice C. shifts scope by bringing in that psychotherapy should never be provided "in a context". The context is only drawn in the conclusion of talk shows. Instead, I'm looking for something that connects the premises of the argument. What I suggest is just to look for this shift of scope. That's where you're assumption is. And that assumption.. is the correct answer.

When this author shifts by saying psychotherapists shouldnt provide therapy on talk shows because it doesnt they cant provide high qualift help.. he is assuming that this is important. And when you read this you should be thinking who the hell cares? UNLESS.. pyschotherapists HAVE to provide high-quality help. Answer choice C. touches on this but it's scope is different. It isn't discussing what psychotherapists should do or have to do. It is talking about the field in general -- not the psychotherapists.

I dont know if this makes it any clearer but that's the way I see it. Hope this helps!

[Obelisk18]

questions that ask you something like this:

"which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn?"

i have a specific question on PT56 LR1 Q20, the question about psychologists providing therapy on TV and radio, i was wondering...wouldn't answer choice C also allow the conclusion to follow, as well as the accredited answer E? how does one decide which one is better in this situation and why?

also if anyone has any suggestions or tips on how to approach questions like this, it would be MUCH appreciated!

No. I came down to C and the correct answer myself but ultimately was able to eliminate C. Here's why: Notice the phrase "any chance" in answer C. This goes too far. The psychologist is arguing, in essence, that psychotherapy shouldn't be provided because there's a "high chance" that it'll be of less than high quality. With principle/justify questions, the degree in the correct answer and and the degree in the stimulus need to match up. E gives us that. C would fit well with a stimulus where the psychologist argued that psychotherapy shouldn't be provided because the demand was "sometimes" or "occasionally" incompatible with high-quality help. It can sometimes be helpful to look at the right answer as a necessary assumption that does the work of a sufficient assumption. By that I mean, like a sufficient assumption, the correct answer will complete the argument (nothing else needs to be assumed), but like a necessary assumption, if the correct answer wasn't true, the whole argument would fall apart. Negate choice E be replacing "never" with "sometimes". What happens? Well, if they should "sometimes" provide help even if it'll be less than high quality then maybe an appearance on a talk show is one of those times. If the psychologist believed the negation, then in order for his conclusion to follow, he'd have to add another argument that excluded talk shows.

In contrast, if you negated choice C by replacing "never" with "sometimes"...well, it'd be a convoluted sentence, but if you decode it you'll see that the psychologist could believe the negation of C without changing his argument. He might say something like "sure, if there's a 2% chance it'll be less than high quality, then psychotherapy could be provided, but this is like 90% chance it'll be less than high quality. My point stands". I don't know if that's too convoluted an explanation or what. Scope shift works too for discrediting C. It's, for instance, possible that there are people other than psychotherapists who provide psychotherapy. Maybe psychiatrists provide psychotherapy. Since the psychologist only mentions psychotherapists, it could be that his argument doesn't apply to everyone who provides psychotherapy, and therefore C doesn't have to be true.

[Ocean64]

thanks, i better start drilling these

[Bobeo]

The Manhattan LSAT forums has a great explanation for this problem. It basically says that C goes to far with its language. It is too extreme, and thus, it doesn't NEED to be true.

The explanation gave an analogy. Let's say that you are going to buy a suit that costs 350 dollars. You have two principles (or assumptions): You have 350 dollars and you have 400 dollars. Both allow the conclusion to be drawn, in this case you buy the suit. But only one is NECESSARY. The 350 is necessary, where as the 400 is sufficient.

This is sneakily testing necessary vs. sufficient conditions. E is necessary, and therefore must be true, whereas C is sufficient but not necessary.

[Ocean64]

This is sneakily testing necessary vs. sufficient conditions. E is necessary, and therefore must be true, whereas C is sufficient but not necessary.

yes, but isn't the question asking for sufficient assumption that is also a principle?

i don't see how necessary assumption explanation has anything to do with that.

[KevinP]

This is sneakily testing necessary vs. sufficient conditions. E is necessary, and therefore must be true, whereas C is sufficient but not necessary.

yes, but isn't the question asking for sufficient assumption that is also a principle?

i don't see how necessary assumption explanation has anything to do with that.

That is where this question might have tricked you. It is a relatively rare question type in that it asks about a necessary principle. Many of the other principle questions are sufficient principle questions.

"must be assumed" = necessary

[Ocean64]

This is sneakily testing necessary vs. sufficient conditions. E is necessary, and therefore must be true, whereas C is sufficient but not necessary.

yes, but isn't the question asking for sufficient assumption that is also a principle?

i don't see how necessary assumption explanation has anything to do with that.

That is where this question might have tricked you. It is a relatively rare question type in that it asks about a necessary principle. Many of the other principle questions are sufficient principle questions.

"must be assumed" = necessary

i see. you're right, i totally missed that. thanks