PT32.S4.Q4 - Psychiatrist: Take any visceral emotion

hosny.yhm

32.4.4

I'm having trouble breaking down the lawgic in this arugment.

I did:

Viceral emotion (VE) always able to Express that emotion (EE) Always able to express anger (EA)

I thought I was looking for VE --> EA

but, answer choice "B" was EA --> VE

Apperently the argrument is read:

Premise: Visceral Emotion ---> Healthy to Express
Conclusion: Anger ---> Healthy to Express

Which leads: (Anger --> Visceral Emotion ---> Healthy to Express)

How come it's not (Visceral Emotion ---> Healthy to Express --> Anger)?

How come I'm reading the conclusion as: (Healthy to Express --> Anger)?

EDIT: I think I figured it out.

"Always" as a logical indicator introduces necessary group 4.

Premise: To express a Visceral Emotion it's always Healthy
Conclusion: To express ones Anger it's always Healthy

"Always" introduces conclusion.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-04/

jmarmaduke96

Hi There!
To take your questions one at a time, the premise is diagrammed as (Visceral Emotion --> Healthy to Express) because the word "always" is used, which is a Group 2 indicator word, meaning the idea that it modifies is a necessary condition for something. So, the second sentence says "There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion." The word "always" there modified that entire idea following it "situations in which it is healthy to try to express..." and then the following idea (the having of the visceral emotion) is the sufficient condition. So it would be then diagrammed (Visceral Emotion --> Healthy to Expression). If we were to reword this to have traditional conditional logic indicators, it would read "If you have a visceral emotion, then there are situation in which is it healthy to try to express it."

The conclusion is exactly the same. "There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express one's anger." The word "always" denotes a necessary condition, (situations in which it is healthy to express" and the part following that, the "anger" is the sufficient condition. Once again here, this is diagrammed (Anger -> Healthy to Express).

So the premise gives us A --> B, and the conclusion gives us C --> B, so therefore in order to make a valid argument we need to know that C --> A, which is exactly what answer choice B gives us. I hope that makes sense.. if not shoot me a message and I can try to explain it more!

hosny.yhm

@jmarmaduke96

Thank you! I finally get it!