LSAT PrepTest 43 Section 2 Question 6 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


This Logical Reasoning question is from the June 2004 LSAT exam.

Let's make a chain of short phrases to see how the argument progresses. (Once you get a bit of experience on arguments questions, there is probably no need to right the chain down, except on the hardest questions...just keeping it in your mind or underlining parts of the argument should be enough.)

Can't be both confidential and concerned --> Report, violate trust --> Don't report, endanger people

So, basically, there's a conflict between confidentiality and keeping the public safe. We have to weaken this argument. So, we need something that casts doubt on there being a conflict between confidentiality and public safety for therapists. Let's look through the answer choices, since we can't pre-phrase (any number of things might weaken the argument):

A) Beyond the argument's scope. Whether this answer choice is true or not really has nothing to do with the argument, which is about a conflict between confidentiality and public safety. This doesn't address that at all.

B) Outside the scope, like A. If this choice were true, would it cast doubt on the conflict between confidentiality and safety? No. Where criminals get their treatment has no bearing on this. So, we can eliminate it.

C) Beyond the scope, again. We want something that addresses confidentiality/safety for criminals, not victims. That victims have a need for confidentiality has no bearing on the confidentiality/safety conflict regarding criminals.

D) Outside the scope, again. That crime victims have a right to compensation that's equal to criminals' right to confidentiality does not show us that there isn't a conflict between confidentiality/public safety for therapists. Remember, the right answer has to hit this directly.

E) Correct. This directly confronts the confidentiality/safety conflict, and weakens the argument by saying there isn't as much of a conflict, since therapists can use the confidentiality (and the trust that comes with it) to achieve safety (by convincing them not to commit more crimes).

Remember:

1) Make a chain of arguments, usually in your head (or, underline bits of the argument) as you get more experienced with the test, that shows how the argument progresses. Don't pre-phrase if there are many possible answers, as was the case here.

2) On weaken questions, just find the main point of the argument (very important...your chain of phrases ought to help you do this) and find an answer choice that casts doubt on that. For this to be true, the scope of the answer choice must match that of the argument...the choice must directly address itself to the argument's main point.