PT59.S2.Q13 - psychologists have discovered

Sarah889

Hey All,

So this is a PSA question. I selected answer E when timed and I didn't even circle this question to BR because I was so confident in my answer. It wasn't until I was reviewing with some others during a BR call that this error was brought to my attention. I got some great feedback from those on the call, but upon further solo reflection, I'm still not 100% confident with this.

This is how I interpret the stimulus. There are two categories of people mentioned: adults and children. There is this technique to address chronic nightmares that works on adults. Children who are nightmare prone are likely to suffer from nightmares as adults. Therefore, we need to identify these children and treat them.

The conclusion specifies efforts towards identifying nightmare-prone children. I'm thinking to myself- well, why not utilize this technique with ALL children? Why are we putting the effort into identifying then treating these children. I chose E because it addresses this issue. I interpreted E as justifying the conclusions claim for focused effort.

The correct answer is C, which says psychologists should do everything to minimize the number of adults troubled by chronic nightmares. My issue with C is, by accepting that we must do EVERYTHING (bold statement to begin with, but we are looking for an PSA, which allows for that I guess), then shouldn't we also teach ALL children this technique? The stimulus doesn't set up the necessary condition that, if you suffer from chronic nightmares as an adult, then you did as a kid. The stimulus says it is more likely for nightmare prone children to suffer as an adult. So since this isn't a determined, 100% relationship, in order to do EVERYTHING (like C says), we should be addressing this margin of potentiality for non-nightmare prone children to develop chronic nightmares as an adult.

In short, my issue is C seems to inherently contradict the conclusion.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-13/

jknauf

@bswise2 said:
My issue with C is, by accepting that we must do EVERYTHING (bold statement to begin with, but we are looking for an PSA, which allows for that I guess), then shouldn't we also teach ALL children this technique?

Do you think doing everything leaves for the possibility that we aren't teaching all children (prone to nightmares) this technique?

When we are doing PSA questions, do we need something which fully reaches our conclusion?

The 180 Bro_OVO

I don't believe C contradicts the conclusion.
For PSA (Pseudo Sufficient Assumption) questions, I generally treat them like Sufficienr Assumption (SA) questions. We are trying to make the argument valid. (The argument won't be 100% valid bc it is a PSA).


With that as a goal, we can look at our premises.
We know that a technique for removing bad dreams and replacing them with good dreams exists.

And in our conclusion, we know we ought to help the kids.

C is the only answer choice that connects the facts (we have this technology) to what should be done (we must help these kids).

In picking C, we say we want to ensure as few adults get bad dreams as possible. The way we do that is through our conclusion (starting with the kids who have bad dreams. )

Without picking C, the random facts of adults having bad dreams doesn't support/connect to the conclusion.

Does this make sense?
Would anyone care to jump in?

The 180 Bro_OVO

Also. Regarding your concern about wanting to hell "ALL" children. I think in general that's definitely a good thing.

I think the reason that is not particularly relevant here Is because that's it of the scope of our conclusion.

Our conclusion is focused on children who have bad dreams. We don't know/can't comment on those who don't have those dreams. For all we know, this technology might not even effect/help those kids. Or maybe even hurt them.
The argument doesn't mention them. So we just don't know.

Again. If my reasoning is off, anyone can hop in.

Sarah889

@jknauf said:
Do you think doing everything leaves for the possibility that we aren't teaching all children (prone to nightmares) this technique?

When we are doing PSA questions, do we need something which fully reaches our conclusion?

To your first question, no. If we are doing everything, then we are teaching ALL children because there is no way to determine which ones will grow up to have chronic nightmares. If there was an absolute conditional (ALL adults suffering from chronic nightmares were children suffering from chronic nightmares), then yes. I would then admit that doing everything allows for the possibility that we aren't teaching all children and still abiding within the restrains of "everything we can do."

To your second question, no we do not. Which is why I chose E because E justifies the conclusion partially.

@"The 180 Bro_OVO" said:
I think the reason that is not particularly relevant here Is because that's it of the scope of our conclusion.

I think I somewhat follow you, but I'm not exactly sure how my counterexample is out of scope. The conclusion specifies certain children but makes no justification for why it specifies certain children. I'm trying to point out that lack of justification by saying, "Well, we don't really have any reason to think it couldn't be ALL the children. So unless you tell me why only teaching these children the technique constitutes 'everything we can do,' then I have to point out the gap in your reasoning." Please let me know if I am misunderstanding what you meant.

jknauf

@bswise2 said:
To your first question, no. If we are doing everything, then we are teaching ALL children because there is no way to determine which ones will grow up to have chronic nightmares. If there was an absolute conditional (ALL adults suffering from chronic nightmares were children suffering from chronic nightmares), then yes. I would then admit that doing everything allows for the possibility that we aren't teaching all children and still abiding within the restrains of "everything we can do."

@bswise2 said:
My issue with C is, by accepting that we must do EVERYTHING (bold statement to begin with, but we are looking for an PSA, which allows for that I guess), then shouldn't we also teach ALL children this technique?

Why then, can you use that as a reason to have an issue with C?

@bswise2 said:
To your second question, no we do not. Which is why I chose E because E justifies the conclusion partially.

If our conclusion gives us something we should be doing, do you think an answer choice which tells us what we should not be doing, can help to justify what we should be doing?

Sarah889

@jknauf said:
If our conclusion gives us something we should be doing, do you think an answer choice which tells us what we should not be doing, can help to justify what we should be doing?

Considering this is a PSA, we have some wiggle room with the logic, correct? If we are directing our efforts towards identifying then treating children, can we not (PSA style) infer that we are not interested in treating all children since there is the extra step of identifying. I know where you are going in the sense that, logically, saying X should do Y does not mean that X should not do ~Y, but in a PSA, we are not as tied to the validity.

jknauf

@bswise2 said:
Considering this is a PSA, we have some wiggle room with the logic, correct?

Yes, we must support our conclusion. Does it add to our conclusion to say we should not treat these children?

Sarah889

@jknauf said:
Yes, we must support our conclusion. Does it add to our conclusion to say we should not treat these children?

I guess not...I see what you're saying. So my issue is that I am taking the "identification" part of the conclusion and making unwarranted assumptions about the repercussions?

jknauf

@bswise2 said:
I guess not...I see what you're saying. So my issue is that I am taking the "identification" part of the conclusion and making unwarranted assumptions about the repercussions?

The Socratic Method is a beautiful thing.

Sarah889

@jknauf said:
The Socratic Method is a beautiful thing.

Always a pleasure. Thank you.