LSAT 116 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 06

June 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:15

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT116 S2 Q06
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
9%
160
B
4%
158
C
1%
155
D
4%
156
E
81%
164
128
142
156
 +Medium 146.822 +SubsectionMedium

Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients’ right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes. Reporting a client’s unreported crimes violates the client’s trust, but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that therapists who treat violent criminals can’t simultaneously honor their client’s right to confidentiality and be concerned about the criminals’ future victims. As support, the author claims that reporting unreported crimes violates the client’s right to confidentiality and breaks their trust, but not reporting these crimes keeps criminals out of prison and able to commit more crimes.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that concern for the client’s rights to confidentiality and concern for the welfare of future crime victims are mutually exclusive. It could be possible that there is a way to both respect client’s right to privacy while also protecting future victims.

A
Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.
If (A) is true, the apparent contradiction between right to privacy and protection of victims still exists; (A) does not add information that allows right to privacy to coexist with protection of victims. Further, the argument discusses criminals who are currently out of prison.
B
Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.
The argument is concerned with criminals who were out of prison. This comparison with a different group (criminals in prison) is irrelevant to the argument.
C
Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.
The argument is concerned with whether criminals’ rights to confidentiality puts potential future crime victims at risk; future victims’ confidentiality rights wouldn’t come with that same risk, so (C) is irrelevant.
D
The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.
The idea of compensation is irrelevant to the argument; the argument discusses the relationship between confidentiality and safety.
E
A therapist who has gained a violent criminal’s trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.
(E) is correct because it shows how confidentiality for criminals can coexist with safety for potential future victims. Therapists can be concerned with both their clients’ rights to confidentiality and the welfare of future victims.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 116 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply