Psychologist: Some have argued that Freudian psychotherapy is the most effective kind because it is so difficult and time consuming. But surely Conclusion this does not follow. Support Similar reasoning—e.g., concluding that a car-repair chain has the most effective technique for repairing cars because the cars it services receive so much work and spend so much time in the shop—would never be accepted.
The psychologist concludes that it doesn’t follow that Freudian psychotherapy is the most effective, just because it’s difficult and time consuming. She supports this with an analogy, saying that no one would accept the similar reasoning that a car repair shop is the most effective simply because cars spend a lot of time there.
The psychologist counters the argument about the effectiveness of Freudian psychotherapy by analogizing it with another argument whose conclusion no one would accept: that a car shop is the most effective just because cars spend a lot of time there.
The reasoning technique employed by the psychologist is that of attempting to undermine an argument by
introducing a principle that contradicts the one on which the argument is based
The author never introduces a principle. Instead, she introduces an analogous argument to point out that her opponents’ argument doesn’t follow.
questioning the truth of its premises
The author doesn’t question whether Freudian psychotherapy is difficult and time consuming. She just argues that it doesn’t follow from this that Freudian psychotherapy is the most effective.
presenting an analogous argument whose conclusion is thought to be obviously false
The author presents an analogous argument— that a car shop is the most effective just because cars spend a lot of time there— whose conclusion is thought to be obviously false, or whose conclusion “would never be accepted.”
claiming that the argument is based on a false analogy
The argument that the author is undermining is not based on an analogy at all. It is the author herself who uses an analogy to undermine her opponents’ argument.
suggesting that a supposed cause of a phenomenon is actually an effect of that phenomenon
There isn’t any cause-and-effect confusion in the argument that the author attempts to undermine. She just claims that the conclusion of the argument doesn’t follow, supporting this by presenting an analogous argument.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic