Now I am totally confused by this question. I simply cannot infer from the question that (C) expresses. Can you help me with it?
#13 - "Addiction" has been defined as "dependence on and
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Dependence and abuse are separate, the stimulus author says; and he/she also says that saying addiction means dependence + abuse is wrong, because abuse is separable from dependence.
In any case, you need some link between "addiction" and "dependence" re cancer patients, in order to make those patients' experience relevant to the argument; so choice C provides that (linking cancer patients' morphine dependence to addiction), whereas other answers don't. (Other answers may link abuse to dependence, say, but you don't need that.)
First I cannot understand the logic relationship between addiction, dependence and abuse. It seems that add= depen+abu; depen does not cause abu and vice versa. But what does the relationship between depen and abu has anything to do with the definition with add? Why (C) is correct in this question?
You're right that Addiction = Dependence + Abuse, according to the definition in the stimulus. The author then tells us that sometimes you can have Dependence without Abuse and Abuse without Dependence. The author concludes that the definition of "addiction" is incorrect.
But how did the author decide that the definition of "addiction" is incorrect? If you can have Dependence without Abuse, maybe that means that the person isn't addicted, they are only dependent. And if you have Abuse without Dependence, maybe that means the person is just abuses drugs but it not addicted. For the author to conclude that the definition is incorrect on the basis of this evidence, he or she must have assumed that cancer patients who are dependent but don't abuse are addicted and that people who abuse without being dependent are also addicted.
That brings us to answer choice (C). If we use the Assumption Negation technique to negate (C), it would read: cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are NOT addicted to it. That would attack the conclusion that the definition of "addiction" is incorrect. If we have someone who is only dependent and not addicted, that fits the given definition.
Hope that helps!
Very nice! Thanks!
The correct answer C does not make sense to me when the stimuli tries to make an argument that "addiction" does not make sense with its definition.
The answer that i chose was A since i thought once negated it would damage the conclusion- if the cancer patient are both dependent on and addicted to morphine, the conclusion, "...is incorrect" seems to be damaged.
For a discussion of answer choice (C), I'm going to refer you to a previous post.
For answer choice (A), if you negate it to say that cancer patients sometimes abuse morphine, that doesn't have any effect on the conclusion that the definition of addiction is incorrect. The author does not assume that cancer patients never abuse morphine, he just states that it's possible for them to be dependent on morphine without abusing it. To prove the definition of addiction is incorrect, the author isn't trying to say that there are never people who are both dependent and abusing, just that there are sometimes instances of addiction with just one or the other.
Hope this helps!
This may seem like a dumb question, but because "addiction" is defined as "dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance," if we prove that one of these conditions isn't true (i.e. someone is dependent on the substance but not abusing it OR someone is abusing the substance but not dependent on it), wouldn't that adequately prove that the definition of "addiction" is wrong?
I'm struggling to understand the logic used to reach the correct answer.
I feel your pain, cfu1! The issue here is about the definition of "addiction" - for something to be an addiction, there has to be both dependence and abuse. If there's someone out there abusing something but not dependent on it, does that mean that the definition of addiction is wrong? No, it only means that in that case, that person simply isn't addicted!
Here's an analogy using one of my favorite topics: in order for a beverage to be properly called "beer", it must have only water, barley, hops and yeast. This beverage I am drinking is called wheat beer and has no barley but instead has wheat in it, so the definition of beer is wrong.
Is the definition wrong? Not necessarily! Couldn't it be true that the definition is still correct, and the "wheat beer" is NOT properly called beer?
Here's another: a ham and cheese sandwich must have both ham and cheese in it. This sandwich has cheese but no ham, so the definition of a ham and cheese sandwich is wrong. But wait - who said this no-ham, yes-cheese sandwich is a ham and cheese sandwich? If it's not - if it's, say, turkey and cheese - then the definition of ham and cheese could still be correct!
That's what's happening in this stimulus. The only way to show that the definition is wrong is to say that something fails to meet the definition and yet is still in the category of the things so defined. If the morphine-dependent cancer patients don't abuse it but are nonetheless addicted, then the definition of addiction must not actually require abuse. But, if the morphine-addicted cancer patients do not abuse it and are NOT addicted, then the definition of addiction could still be correct. Answer C connects those patients back to addiction, and that's what makes it a winner.
Speaking of winning, can you guess what I had for lunch today? Mmmmmmm.
Keep at it, it will only get easier as you move forward!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
Ahhh, I see, that definitely makes more sense now. Thanks for your help!
10 posts • Page 1 of 1