#11 - Psychiatrist: While the first appearance of a phobia

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

Here the psychiatrist shares some facts regarding phobias and traumatic events:

Phobias usually appear after a traumatic event. But not every time. And not everyone who gets traumatized develops a phobia.

From this limited information, the psychiatrist makes the bold (and unjustified) conclusion that traumatic events do not contribute to phobias. The flaw here is causal: the psychiatrist apparently believes that because trauma and phobias do not coincide in every single case, there must be no causal link between the two.

Answer choice (A): While this answer choice does describe a causal flaw, it is not the flaw manifest in the psychiatrist’s argument.

Answer choice (B): The psychiatrist does not assert that no cause can be established, but rather incorrectly asserts that there is no causal link between phobias and traumas.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes the flaw of circular reasoning; when we see a conclusion which is logically equivalent to a supporting premise, this is circular reasoning. But that flaw is not present in the psychiatrist’s argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The psychiatrist presumes that in order for traumas to contribute to phobias, they must be associated in every instance.

Answer choice (E): The causal flaw described here is not present in the stimulus. The psychiatrist draws a flawed causal conclusion (that there is no causal link), but this conclusion is not derived from a “mere association.”

[angie23]

I have trouble understanding why certain answer choices are correct in these questions and I hope someone would explain the reasoning behind the correct and incorrect answers:

11) I couldn't tell what the flaw was in the stimulus. I also don't know why D is correct since none of the answer choices seemed correct or incorrect. Help?


Thank you!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi angie23,

The author begins by describing a correlation between traumatizing events and the development of a phobia, but then proceeds to present exceptions to this correlation: many people with phobias are never traumatized, and many traumatizing events do not contribute to the occurrence of phobias. From this, the author concludes that a casual link between the two does not exist.

Therein lies the flaw: just like a perfect correlation does not prove causation, an imperfect correlation does not disprove causation. Take lung cancer and smoking, for instance: many smokers do not develop lung cancer, and many lung cancer patients are non-smokers. However, smoking is widely believed to contribute to the development of lung cancer. Same thing in this argument: despite the exceptions to the correlation, it is entirely possible that traumatizing events do contribute to the occurrence of phobias.

Answer choice (D) alludes to the unwarranted assumption made by the author: that a causal relationship between two phenomena requires a perfect association between them. No causal relationship necessarily assumes such a high standard of association. Essentially, this is an error in the use of evidence: some evidence against a proposition (that trauma causes phobia) is taken as proof that the proposition is false (i.e. that trauma does not cause phobia).

Let me know if this clears things up!

[rameday]

So I found this question interesting. From the stimulus it was quite clear that he was rejecting a causal conclusion. So as a result I eliminated answer choice D because I thought D was advocating for a casual conclusion. I ended up selecting C even though I was stuck as to exactly what C was saying.

1) What is C saying. Not sure I understand that flaw
2) why is D correct. Like I thought causal reasoning is fundamentally flawed on the LSAT, so if the author rejects a causal conclusion, how can the correct answer be something that says that he takes for granted a causal conclusion.

A

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi ramdeday,

When we say that causal arguments are inherently flawed on the LSAT, we mean that they are difficult - if not impossible - to prove with 100% certainty. Arguments rejecting a causal relationship are also inherently flawed, and for the same reason: just because A can occur without B (or B can occur without A) does not mean that A does not cause B. It is equally difficult to prove or disprove a causal proposition. All we can do with causal arguments is weaken or strengthen them. Proving the existence (or nonexistence) of a causal relationship is much more difficult, and such arguments are often - if not always - flawed.

In this argument, the author is attempting to reject the causal relationship between traumatizing events and phobias:

Conclusion: It is NOT true that traumatizing events (cause) phobia (effect)

Why? Because some phobias are not preceded by traumatizing events, and also because some traumatizing events are not followed by the development of phobias. While these observations may serve to weaken the absolute association between traumas and phobias, they do not disprove the causal relationship between the two. Take another example: let's say I told you that some smokers never develop lung cancer, and that some lung cancer patients are non-smokers. Does that disprove the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer? Of course not! Causation does not require an absolute association between the cause and the effect. Conditional reasoning is absolute; causal reasoning - much less so. This is incredibly important to understand.

Answer choice (C) describes a circular flaw, which does not exist in this argument.

Answer choice (D) describes the presumption that causal reasoning requires an absolute association between the cause and the effect. Such a presumption is not warranted, as discussed above. Traumas and phobias need not be associated in every instance in order for a causal relationship to exist between them.

Hope this helps! Let us know.

Thanks!

[lolaSur]

Thank you for your explanations. I understand what is flawed about the argument. I was stuck between choosing C or choosing D. I understand that C is the answer for a circular argument.

I hesitated in choosing D because the answer says "takes for granted(meaning that the author doesn't acknowledge) that a phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if (necessitates) phenomena of these two types are invariably associated."

So what I understood this answer to mean in my own words is that the author doesn't acknowledge that for a phenomenon to contribute to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon is necessary that phenomena of these two types are invariably associated.

According to your explanation two things with causal relationship do not have to be invariably associated.

I would have guessed that the correct answer to the flaw of this stimulus would say the opposite - that the author doesn't acknowledge that for a phenomenon to contribute to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon is NOT necessary that phenomena of these two types are invariably associated.

Am I not thinking about this correctly? Should I be thinking about answer D in the sense that if mentioned in the stimulus answer D would eliminate the argument's flaw within this specific stimulus? For example, if the author were to not take for granted (mention) that for a type of phenomenon to contribute to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon is necessary phenomena of these two types are invariably associated.

Thank you!

For my reference (L7, flaw q58)

[Robert Carroll]

lola

"Takes for granted" means the author assumes something. In other words, the author does not feel the need to demonstrate, but takes as an assumption that doesn't need to be demonstrated, a certain idea. Far from being something the author doesn't acknowledge, answer choice (D) is exactly what the author thinks is true, but doesn't bother to prove - because two things aren't invariably associated, it's not possible that one causally contributes to the other.

Because your post seems to show that you understand the author is wrong to think that a casual connection requires invariable association, I think you get the flaw quite well. The only issue seems to have been the interpretation of the phrase "takes for granted." Because this comes up often in Flaw questions and Flaw answer choices, it's good to get clear on what it means. If the author takes something for granted, that thing is something that might not be true that the author thinks IS true. So it's not a true thing the author fails to acknowledge - it's more like the opposite: a possibly false thing the author wants to be true (to make the argument work).

Robert Carroll