Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
PT91.S2.Q13 - Psychotherapist: The troubles from which...
jacob.elser2
Free Trial Member
(D) is clearly correct, but I'm having trouble articulating why (C) doesn't work. Here is my articulation:
At its core I think it comes down to a necessary vs. sufficient concept. Not like "C is sufficient but not necessary" but like this: the stimulus is saying that in order to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist MUST focus on positive change in relationships. The negation of (C) would be "there are at least some patients who will not find relief by changing their relationships." BUT the stimulus wasn't saying "if the psychotherapist focuses on positive change, the patient will be helped," it was saying "focusing on positive change is necessary in order to help." So it doesn't kill the argument to say "there are some cases where positive change didn't help a patient."
Maybe that isn't as muddled as I thought but any input would be helpful. Thanks!
Comments
You have it perfectly. The argument was saying changing relationships is necessary for relieving troubles, as in you cannot do without it. C tells us that changing relationships will be sufficient for relieving troubles, but that's not what the argument focuses on.
D interrupts the argument by saying changing relationships actually isn't necessary for relieving troubles. If D were the case, how could changing relationships be necessary then?
Good work! Logical reasoning flaws like this show up subtly like this all the time, so the more problems you do, the better and more confident you will feel when they do arise.
Thanks mate!