Q11 - Some psychologists claim that

[mleeker]

Really confused here on this one. It seems that a claim from psychologists is presented, but then the argument refutes it saying it would never be possible to achieve its' goal (grasping another persons motivations). The argument then concludes that you can understand people, but that the psychologists method is wrong?

Any ideas on why (C) is correct? I'm completely lost.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thank you so much for bringing this question to the board! It's super confusing and yet, if you're careful to read for structure as opposed to content, it's doable.

The main conclusion is that the psychologists are wrong. The evidence is that

1. Some psychologists claim that, in theory, the best way to understand another person would be through deep empathy.
2. But obviously one can understand other people.

Therefore
The psychologists are wrong.

Simple enough argument if you sift away the clutter. From this perspective the second claim does not actually challenge the psychologist's claim and so the argument is confusing the best way to understand other people with the only way of understanding other people. Best expressed in answer choice (C).

I'll admit that this is not how I originally viewed the argument. And it took me a few passes and checks in the stimulus to see this argument clearly.

(A) is irrelevant. There is no equivocal use of the phrase "deep empathy" in this argument.
(B) was very tempting. But on closer inspection doesn't pan out. It assumes that one can understand other people. It never denies this claim. Instead, it denies what is the best way to understand another person.
(D) is not true, this argument denies an authority.
(E) is true, but so what. The author doesn't need to consider that other psychologists might disagree with the psychologists cited. Remember the author disagreed with the psychologists cited.

Does that clear this one up?

[peg_city]

Can you explain in more detail why B is wrong?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's take a look at answer choice (B). Does this argument assume something that it later denies? The argument does say, "suppose [psychologists] are right." Does that meant the argument assumes that they are right? Not exactly. It considers what they're saying and then attempts to refute it, by taking into consideration the consequences of assuming that it was true.

But considering and then rejecting a claim is not the same as assuming something that it is later denied. There is no contradiction in this argument since it does not claim both that the psychologists are right and also that they're not right.

Does that answer your question?

[peg_city]

Yes, Thanks

[geverett]

That is a great explanation Matt. I am going to add a play by play of the argument real quick, because, though I got it right, it definitely gave me a difficult time and it took until this morning after looking at it multiple times and reviewing this thread to feel like I finally got a grasp of what the argument was really saying.

Line 1-4
Psychologists claim the best way to understand another person is through deep empathy.

Line 4-8

If psychologists were right about their claim ( that the best way to understand another person is through deep empathy) then it would be impossible to achieve understanding because deep empathy (ability to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations) is psychologically impossible.

Line 9 - 10

Psychologists are wrong (that deep empathy is the best way to understand another person), because obviously one can understand other people.

This stimulus is trying to mess with you because it depends on the use of borrowed language to try and throw your understanding of the argument. The conclusion of the argument is in the final 2 lines with the borrowed language inserted in parentheses to clarify what the author is referring to. You can see after you insert the borrowed language how ridiculous the argument is. See the summation of lines 9 - 10 up above to get his final conclusion.

In essence the author of the argument is assuming that because it's impossible to engage in deep empathy that deep empathy cannot be the best way to understand another person.

An analogous argument would be: Some people claim the fastest way to travel would be at the speed of light. If this were true, however, then there would be no way to travel since traveling at the speed of light is impossible. Therefore, since it is possible to travel those who claim that the fastest way to travel would be at the speed of light are wrong.

It's tricky, but you can see here that the author is assuming that something not being possible is sufficient to say that it is not the best way to achieve a result.

I don't assume someone can understand my explanation, because this is a challenging question. Please ask me if I need to add any further clarification.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

An analogous argument would be: Some people claim the fastest way to travel would be at the speed of light. If this were true, however, then there would be no way to travel since traveling at the speed of light is impossible. Therefore, since it is possible to travel those who claim that the fastest way to travel would be at the speed of light are wrong.

Nice analogy!

[chike_eze]

An analogous argument would be: Some people claim the fastest way to travel would be at the speed of light. If this were true, however, then there would be no way to travel since traveling at the speed of light is impossible. Therefore, since it is possible to travel those who claim that the fastest way to travel would be at the speed of light are wrong.

Wow, I definitely did not catch this at first. Missed this question on my first try (chose E), but got it right on my second attempt. But it was still confusing.

The analogy above got me thinking about what the LSAT tricksters were up to. And I think this is a "confusing a sufficient for a necessary condition" or, as it is sometimes called, "illegal negation" flaw.

Here's how I broke it Down:

Deep Empathy is the best way (in theory) to Understanding
> DE --> U (DE is the most sufficient path to U)

If above were true, then there would be no way to achieve Understanding, since Deep Empathy (as defined) is impossible
> not DE --> not U (illegal negation, assumes DE is necessary)
> U --> DE (contrapositive = illegal reversal)

But obviously, we can Understand, thus Deep Empathy is not the best way to Understanding.
> therefore, not (DE --> U) (wrong conclusion)


As pointed out earlier, the author assumes that because Deep empathy is the best way to understanding, that the former is also the only way for the latter to occur.

I believe (C) states this flaw: The author is confusing a theoretical best way (sufficient condition) of accomplishing something with the only way (necessary condition) of accomplishing it.

X is the best way to Y = X --> Y
X is the only way to Y = Y --> X

Thoughts??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work Chike, that's a great interpretation! Though you could see it both as a reversal or a negation. They're essentially the same flaw, "confusing sufficiency with necessity."

[chike_eze]

Nice work Chike, that's a great interpretation! Though you could see it both as a reversal or a negation. They're essentially the same flaw, "confusing sufficiency with necessity."

Thanks, I've been working on flaw questions recently and have been noticing some flaws that keep coming up.

I've added your comment to my notes.

Illegal reversal = Illegal negation = Confusing sufficient with necessary. i.e., reversal and negation are contrapositives of each other; therefore they both represent the same flaw (wow! )

--Chike

[Mab6q]

I had an interesting approach to this once I saw the answer choice.

I'll start with answer choice C because the flaw didn't come to me till after I read this:

C. confuses a best way of accomplishing something with the only way of accomplishing it.

I thought, well, let's just replace best with only to see if that's what the author does.

Some psychologist claim that the only way to understand is through deep empathy .... motivation.

Understand --> Motivation

If they are right, we could not have understanding.

~understand

WHY: we cant motivation

~motivation.

But in fact we can understanding, so they are wrong. In essence, the author is saying: A-->B, we have ~B, but we can have A, so the claim that A --> B is incorrect. The issue is that the psychologists never claimed that A --> B. They simply claimed that using motivation was the best way.

So, the author's conclusion would follow if the psychologists had said only and not best.

That is why C is the correct answer.

Hope that helps.

[seychelles1718]

Can someone please explain why C is right? I read all the posts and reviewed this question for hours but still don't understand...

Thank you so much

[tommywallach]

Matt's original explanation is correct and concise. I think any more than that just complicates the issue.

-t

[LauraS737]

Nice work Chike, that's a great interpretation! Though you could see it both as a reversal or a negation. They're essentially the same flaw, "confusing sufficiency with necessity."

Hi, I'm a little confused because can't you have more than one necessary condition, so even if you confuse sufficient with necessary that wouldn't mean it confuses it as the ONLY way?

[MichaelW907]

I break down the argument in a totally different way, after spending some time though. And for me the answer then came pretty apparent:

P: THEORETICALLY, the best way, as some psychologists claim, would lead to no understanding at all [because a direct and complete grasp of motivations causes deep empathy while there is no such as cause] but PRACTICALLY, there is understanding.

C: Those psychologists are wrong [the best way is not deep empathy]

Analysis: it requires an assumption: everyone in practice must follow the theoretically best way. Say if someone does not follow this way but some other practically feasible, though not theoretically best, way, there then might be understanding.

This is exactly what C states what the argument presumes does not stand.