Q20 - Psychotherapy has been described as a

[Shiggins]

The author concludes:

Psychotherapy -> cannot be coercion ( P -> ~C)

Evidence:

Coercion -> restricts ability to make choices ( C-> RAMC)

Goal of Psychotherapy -> to enhance ability to make choices
(P->EAMC)

I diagrammed this problem as:

P-> EAMC-> ~RAMC-> ~C
I saw an assumption as something that EMC can not RAMC

If what I wrote is correct, I am having some trouble relating this to choice C. I was able to eliminate the others choices.

[noah]

I wouldn't use such a formal approach on this question, but if it works for you, great - though it sounds like it might be causing you to leave the world of what words mean!

Your diagram generally looks good, I would amend your approach a bit to not add in the link that's not there. I would write this:

P --> ~ C

And then I would use that as the "frame," spacing them out and seeing what I can fill in:

P-> goal: choice (big space here!) ~ choice restricted -> ~C

And then we need to connect goal: choice to ~ choice restricted. Now, remember that we're dealing with a flaw question, so we're not actually going to fill that gap, we're going to see it mentioned as a flaw. (C) does that by pointing out that the goal of enhancing choices might not lead to psychotherapy actually leading to enhancing choices (or, not restricting choices).

The key to this question is picking up on the gap between the goal and the reference to the goal as a given outcome.

I'd start with the conclusion: psychotherapy can't be coercive. Why? Because psychotherapy aims to enhance your choices, and choices are restricted if you're coerced.

The gap? Just because it's a goal doesn't mean that's what psychotherapy actually does - which, again, is what (C) notes.

(A) mentions a redefinition, but that's not what's happening here. There's an assumption. And what's become an "easier target?" Hunh?

(B) is silly - there's no criticism of psychotherapy in the stimulus.

(D) is tempting since it refers to goals and achieving the goals, but the stimulus isn't about justifying any means.

(E) is out of scope. We don't care what's actually desirable, it's about the goals of psychotherapy.

I hope that helps.

By the way, have you noticed how many LSAT questions are about psychotherapy?!

[Shiggins]

Thank you again Noah. I see much more clearly now. I normally do not diagram much on test mainly bc of what you had said about forgetting what the relation of the letter to word. When I review questions I like to try and diagram to see a basic structure of the argument. And yeah, there are a lot of psychotherapy questions and questions with heart disease. I guess LSAC is trying to warn us.

[wlane4]

When going through this question in drilling I could see how C would seriously weaken the argument but I was unable to eliminate A.

I see the argument core as:

P1 + P2 -> C where

P1: when people are coerced they have a restricted ability to make choices
P2: psychotherapy's goal is to enhance that choice making ability

C: Psychotherapy cannot be a form of coercion

I didn't eliminate C because I could see how over the course of the psychotherapy, there existed the possibility that the patients choices could be restricted which weakens the argument.

I couldn't eliminate A because the definition of coercion in the argument seems to be somewhat narrow and then the argument concludes that because the goal of psychotherapy is to enhance people's decision making ability it cannot be a form of coercion, as defined by the author. Since the argument relies on the authors definition of coercion, wouldn't it weaken the conclusion considerably if the authors definition of coercion were unfair or different than the definition the author specified (although fairness is subjective).


I presented an argument for A because that was my thought process when deciding between A and C and I am hoping that you may be able to shed some light on what is wrong with that process.


Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Since the argument relies on the authors definition of coercion, wouldn't it weaken the conclusion considerably if the authors definition of coercion were unfair or different than the definition the author specified (although fairness is subjective).

Good question! Here's how you can tell that answer choice (A) is incorrect - we aren't given any definition other than the author's, and so we cannot say that the author has indeed redefined a definition unfairly.

You would need to see the redefinition occur within the argument.

[dean.won]

Since the argument relies on the authors definition of coercion, wouldn't it weaken the conclusion considerably if the authors definition of coercion were unfair or different than the definition the author specified (although fairness is subjective).

Good question! Here's how you can tell that answer choice (A) is incorrect - we aren't given any definition other than the author's, and so we cannot say that the author has indeed redefined a definition unfairly.

You would need to see the redefinition occur within the argument.

Isnt the first sentence a definition about pyshotherapy??

Since he concludes the opposite of what the first definition is saying, isnt he in essence "redefining" the definition??

Also i thought he redefined it by moral coercion = coercion
Making the definition more broad thereby making it an easier target