Q4 - Psychiatrist: Take any visceral emotion you care to

[brandonhsi]

Hello, I want to ask why answer B is not the reverse of what we want. In the charper 3, the term shift, it states A -> B is not the same as B -> A. Here, isn't we want "visceral emotions" means "anger", but not the other way around?

[sumukh09]

Premise: Visceral Emotion ---> Healthy to Express
Conclusion: Anger ---> Healthy to Express

More abstractly,

A ---> B
C---->B

What's the gap?

C--->A would give us our conclusion; C--->A--->B

or Anger ---> Visceral Emotion

B is exactly this.

[noah]

Hello, I want to ask why answer B is not the reverse of what we want. In the charper 3, the term shift, it states A -> B is not the same as B -> A. Here, isn't we want "visceral emotions" means "anger", but not the other way around?

Here's a breakdown of this argument:

The core is:

there are always situations where you can healthfully express any visceral emotion --> there are always situations where you can healthfully express anger

What's that gap? Is anger one of those visceral emotions? If it is, then the conclusion makes perfect, smack-your-forehead sense:

there are always situations where you can healthfully express any visceral emotion (for example, anger) --> there are always situations where you can healthfully express anger

(B) delivers it nicely.

It may seem the reverse if you used a very formal lens, since visceral emotion is part of the premise, and it seems like you want "visceral --> anger" to go along with the core arrow, but we're not looking for "If visceral, then anger" - we want to know that the premise applies to this new term, so we want to know that anger is a visceral emotion.

(A) is out of scope - expressible?

(C) is about what's unhealthy to express - out of scope.

(D) and (E) are premise boosters - where's the connection to anger?

[WaltGrace1983]

I know that this would be odd for the LSAT but would it be possible to also assume something like "Anger is the only visceral emotion"?

We have the chain that says:

Visceral Emotion→Healthy to Express

Anger → Healthy to Express

Obviously, A → V makes the most sense as stated by (B) but couldn't it also work to say V → A? In other words, "If its a visceral emotion then its anger, all visceral emotions are healthy to express, thus anger is healthy to express."

[sumukh09]

I know that this would be odd for the LSAT but would it be possible to also assume something like "Anger is the only visceral emotion"?

We have the chain that says:

Visceral Emotion→Healthy to Express

Anger → Healthy to Express

Obviously, A → V makes the most sense as stated by (B) but couldn't it also work to say V → A? In other words, "If its a visceral emotion then its anger, all visceral emotions are healthy to express, thus anger is healthy to express."

Hi,

What you're proposing is this:

A-->B
A-->C
B-->C

Where A = visceral emotion, B = Anger, and C = Healthy to Express

So, if all A's are B's and C's, then all B's are C's.

See why this wouldn't work?

With the stimulus + the answer choice, we have

A-->C
B-->C
B-->A


And we can connect the chain to get B --> A --> C

There's no way we can do that if we assume the other way around ie) A --> B (all visceral emotions are anger)

Hope this helps!

[mkd000]

I have come to see this answer in the following way:

if always situations healthy to express emotion --> emotion is visceral emotion
always situations healthy to express anger
----------
therefore, anger is visceral emotion (can we say this is the same as anger must be a visceral emotion or would this be VE --> anger rather than what the answer choice states (i.e., Anger --> VE))

Is (B) correct because being a VE is a necessary condition of being an emotion that always has situations in which it can be healthy to express? As a result, if anger is one of those healthy to express emotions, then it is a necessary condition that anger is a VE?

I'm not sure why I am so confused, since I still see this question as easy! I think I just want to sort out the conditional logic so that I know exactly why I think its easy if you know what I mean.\

Thank in advance geeks.

[ohthatpatrick]

It seems like you're symbolizing the 2nd sentence incorrectly.

If I say "take any natural disaster. It is always appropriate to make a charitable donation to that disaster."

Does that become
"ANY time it's appropriate to make a charitable donation, I'm certain it's for a natural disaster."
or
"ANY time there's a natural disaster, it's appropriate to make a charitable donation."

It should be the 2nd one. The 1st one means that it's NEVER appropriate to make a charitable donation to a homeless person (who isn't homeless as the result of a natural disaster). My original quote was not intending to keep people from donating to OTHER causes.

Similarly, our conditional rule here is
"If it's a visceral emotion, then there's always a healthy situation to express it."

So some of your thinking may be turned around by your backwards conditional. I think the question is probably simpler without even resorting to conditional logic.

ANY time you get a new idea in the conclusion of Sufficient Assumption, that idea MUST appear in the correct answer.

Since 'anger' makes its first appearance in the conclusion, we MUST pick an answer that defines anger in relation to stuff we talked about.

So only (A) and (B) are in the running.

(A) if anger is always expressible, can I prove that there's always a situation in which it's HEALTHY to express it?

Nope, because it's not like I have a rule that says "Expressible -> always a healthy situation"

(B) if anger is a visceral emotion, can I prove that there's always a situation in which it's HEALTHY TO EXPRESS it?

Yes, because I have a rule that says "Visceral emotion --> always a healthy situation to express"

====

In regards to Walt / subsequent poster ... you're both right, I think. "Anger is the only visceral emotion" would work, because it still establishes that Anger is a visceral emotion.

The other poster is, of course, correct about the symbolic logic of
A -> B
+
A -> C
does not allow us to infer a connection between B and C

But if you know that "anger is the only visceral emotion", you know that "anger is a visceral emotion". So it would kinda create a double arrow.
Visceral emotion <----> Anger

"The only" is not usually a bi-conditional trigger, but the meaning of "anger is the only visceral emotion" to me implies a positive statement that anger and visceral emotions both exist and I could interchangeably say that anger is visceral and visceral is anger.

Let's not waste any more time / brainpower on that unlikely sideshow, though.