LSAT PrepTest 34 Section 2 Question 11 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 is a Logical Reasoning question from the June 2001 LSAT.

We’re looking for the hole / flaw in the stimulus – something we should always be doing anyway. The correct answer choice will identify that flaw.

Analysis:

As always, break down the stimulus to better understand the argument, and the relationship (or the lack thereof) between the Premises and the Conclusion.

Premise 1: Some shrinks claim that, theoretically, the BEST way to understand another person is through “deep empathy” (where one develops a direct and complete sense of that person's motivations).

Premise 2: However, it is impossible to gain a direct and complete sense of another person’s motivations. (In other words, “deep empathy” is impossible.)

Premise 3: Therefore, if the shrinks are right, there is NO WAY AT ALL to achieve understanding.

Premise 4: But we CAN understand other people.

Conclusion: Therefore, the shrinks are wrong.


(Emphasis added. Note that you may sometimes want to rearrange the terms of the Stimulus to better understand how the argument works.)


So what’s wrong with this argument?

The shrinks feel that, in theory, the BEST way to understand someone is through deep empathy. Do they say this is the ONLY way to achieve understanding? No. Even if the shrinks are right about the theoretical best approach, there may still be many other ways to achieve some understanding of others.

The author of the stimulus, however, assumes that just because the theoretical BEST way to achieve understanding is impossible, then there is NO OTHER possible way to achieve understanding. (This is the only way the premises could logically lead to the Conclusion.) However, as noted, there is no reason to assume this.

This is why Choice C is the correct answer. The author confuses the theoretically BEST way of accomplishing something with the ONLY way of accomplishing it. In other words, the author neglects the possibility that there may be OTHER ways of understanding people, even if the theoretical BEST way is impossible.