#25 - Therapist: In a recent study, researchers measured how

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning-#%. The correct answer choice is (B)

The therapist begins this stimulus with reassurances about the random nature of the sample population discussed. About ¾ of the 60 types of psychological problems had cleared up within 50 weeks (almost one year!) of therapy, so the therapist concludes that "50 weekly behavioral therapy sessions are all that most people need." Rather than ¾ of the problem types clearing up, the therapist appears to be under the mistaken impression that exactly three fourths of the population have all of their problems diminish.

Answer choice (A): There is no such presumption reflected in the therapist's argument, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The author fails to consider the possibility that some problem afflicts most people—suppose, for example, that each person clears up ¾ of his or her problem types. For none of those people, then, would therapy have been a complete solution. This hypothetical illuminates the flaw present in the therapist's reasoning.

Answer choice (C): The argument explicitly states that only 60 were considered—this is not the same as assuming that those are the only problems that exist.

Answer choice (D): There is no need to address the possibility that some forms of therapy are unproven, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The therapist only provides that it was a "large, diverse sample," but presumes nothing about the number of problems among the sample group relative to that of the population as a whole.

[kristinaroz93]

"Therapist: In a recent study, researchers measured how quickly 60 different psychological problems..."

I understand the reasoning of the explanation: The fact that the most people could be a part of the 25 percent group where the problems did not clear up, and that the 75 percent of the problems that went away may have just been in regards to a few people, which is why we cannot argue that the 50 weekly therapy sessions are all that MOST people need.

However, I do not understand B as the answer choice. I feel like the answer choice should have been: Fails to address the idea that 75 percent of 60 problems resolved may not have been the ones to afflict most people.
But instead, the answer choice just says: fails to address the possibility that any given one of the 60 psychological problems studied might affect most people. But aren't we just focusing on the 75 percent of problems that cleared up and not the 60 problems as a whole? Because "any given one" of the problems coud refer to even the 25 percent of problems not resolved and that's irrelevant to knowing how many people are afflicted by those unresolvable problems.

I hope my quesiton is making sense.

Thanks in advance!

[jeff.wren]

Hi Kristin,

I think that your explanation of the flaw in this question and your prephrase of the answer are spot on. The tricky part is then realizing that answer choice (B), while not exactly matching your prephrase, is one way of expressing the same idea.

The flaw, as you pointed out, is that the argument confuses 75% of the problems with 75% of the people being completely cured.

Answer choice (B) points out the possibility that it would only take one very common problem affecting most people (assuming that problem was part of the 25% not cured) to disprove the argument.

While there is no way of knowing whether there was such a problem, the fact that this is possible in the argument gets at the flaw that you mentioned, which is that the % of the problems does not necessarily = the % of people completely cured.

Hope this helps,
Jeff

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I have read the explanation above and the explanation provided, but I am still unsure why B is the correct answer. It may be related to the fact that I don't exactly understand what B is saying and why it is the flaw in the reasoning. Can you simplify for me to understand? Thank you.

- Micah

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Micah,

Let's say 2 out of 3 Americans is showing symptoms of Election Fatigue Syndrome, a lethal and little-understood phenomenon that seems to strike without explanation every four years.

That means that hundreds of millions of people have EFS. Okay, now let's say EFS was one of the 60 different psychological problems included in this study. Good so far. Now, let's say that EFS was NOT one of the psychological problems that cleared up after 50 weekly behavioral therapy sessions; in other words, EFS was one of the 25% of conditions studied that proved untreatable through therapy (in fact therapy seemed to make EFS worse). Yet, the fact remains that hundreds of millions of people still have EFS, and it is only getting worse.

If all of the above is true - and it all is possible based on what we are told by the evidence in the stimulus - then the conclusion that 50 weeks of therapy is all that most people need is patently false; as we have seen, two thirds of Americans still suffer from acute EFS. Although it is only one condition, it is by far the most common, and thus even though therapy helps with most (75% of) conditions, it doesn't help with this one, and so most people need more than therapy, because most people have EFS.

Does that help? I hope so. I think I am coming down with something.

[mpoulson]

This explanation was superb. Thank you.

[yrivers]

Hi,

I can't help but think that A is an assumption that the author is making. What is one of the 25% psychological problems took way longer? Wouldn't that weaken the conclusion?

Thanks,
Yaesul

[Steven Palmer]

Hi yrivers,

The error this therapist is making is in counting the number of psychological problems that waned in the study, not the number of patients whose symptoms waned. For this reason, (B) is the correct choice. Imagine if one of the 25% of problems that did not clear up affected every single person in the study? In that case, even if most problems go away after 50 weeks, every single person would still need more help because they had one of the problems that took longer.

(A) is incorrect because it only talks about the time it takes to fix a psychological problem. The therapist is not assuming that the 60 problems study encompass those that take the longest time to fix. Instead, he or she is looking only at the percentage of problems studied that took 50 weeks or fewer. Picking (A) is like criticizing the therapist by saying, "hey, you forgot about schizophrenia, which takes way longer to fix than all the problems you studied!" This would not be a real criticism, as the therapist would respond that that is merely one problem, and that his or her conclusion still holds true.

In response to your other question, if one of the 25% of problems took a really long time, it still does not get at the flaw in the therapist's argument. The therapist accounted for some people to have problems that take longer than 50 weeks. The therapist's problem is that he or she assumed that if a majority of the problems were solved in 50 weeks or fewer, then a majority of the patients also did not need more than 50 weeks.

Hope this helped!
Steven

[jennifersuh]

Hi!
I understand why answer B is correct. I did not choose B however, because the answer choice did not make it seem likely that this possible psychological problem that most people are afflicted with would be part of the 25% that is not cured. So is it fine to choose an answer choice that only may happen?

Also, I'd like to understand why C is wrong. Is it just irrelevant for this stimulus?
I thought that if someone had, for example, 2 psychological problems, than it leaves the opportunity for 1 to be treated after 50 weeks and for one to be left untreated.

Thank you!

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey Jennifer,

So answer choice C and answer choice B start with completely different types of common introductions to the answer choices in flaw questions, which are very important to understand first.

For "takes for granted" answer choices, or "assumes without providing justification that" answer choices, or "presumes without providing justification that" answer choices, whatever comes after these introductory phrase must describe accurately one of the things that the argument assumed.

For answer choice C to be correct, the argument would have had to assume (aka take for granted) that no one suffers from more than one of the psychological issue. The argument did not assumed this. Maybe the argument assumed that most people don't suffer from more than one psychological issue, but the argument did not assume that no one suffered from more than one psychological issue. The use of no one makes this answer choice wrong.

For "fails to consider that" or "ignores the possibility that" or "fails to address that" answer choices, the argument had to forget to include a point that could potentially make its argument fall apart. These answer choices are more similar to weaken answer choices in how they are evaluated. With answer choice B, the argument did not consider that maybe most of the people have one issue that was not addressed. This does not have to be the likely scenario, but pointing out that it was an important consideration that was not addressed is enough to make it the correct answer.

To wrap it all up, the takes for granted vs the fails to consider answer choices should be evaluated differently. In this case though, the use of "no one" in C is likely what makes this answer choice wrong.

I hope this explanation helps and I wish you all of the luck in your studies.

Best,
Ryan