Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 2 · Question 6

Incorrect. This doesn't speak to whether they can find a way to care about the victims of these clients's future crimes while respecting confidentiality. If you thought that this meant they weren't willingly treating the criminals, two issues there. First, it doesn't say that—they could have signed up for this program and then the court assigns them specific people. Second, even if it did, that doesn't mean that they have a sincere concern for future victims.

Incorrect. This answer can be tempting because it suggests that some of the patients are in prison and thus not out of prison, free to commit more crimes." However, this answer establishes that just as many (or more) aren't in prison, leading to the same problem. It also doesn't state that these criminals are permanently in prison, and so they could still eventually commit future crimes.

Incorrect. What is true of the confidentiality rights of victims doesn't impact whether the therapists can walk the line between respecting the rights of criminals while also caring about the victims of their future crimes.

Incorrect. Compensation for crime victims is completely out of scope of this argument, which is limited to discussing the duties that therapists owe to criminals and future victims.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Therapists who treat violent criminals either:
(1) Report their client's crimes and break trust
(2) Don't report their client's crimes and put people at risk from future crimes
Therefore, such a therapist can't respect confidentiality and care about future victims.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument brings up a very specific type of relationship—a mutually exclusive one. It says that two things can't both be true—a therapist can't both keep confidentiality and protect future victims of clients who are violent criminals.

When an argument has such a relationship as the conclusion, the correct answer frequently brings up a way that the two elements aren't mutually exclusive—how both could be true. Here, that would mean the therapists finding a way to respect confidentiality while also caring about the future victims. It's unclear what that answer would look like (if you have an idea, great!), but let's head in with that in mind. Any answer that shows how keeping confidentiality while caring about victims of future crimes is possible will weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a means by which a therapist can navigate seemingly contradictory goals. She can respect confidentiality by not revealing information from the session, thus building trust. That trust can allow her to help future victims by talking the criminals out of future crimes.

Key Takeaway:
An important relationship in any question where it shows up is a mutually exclusive relationship—two elements that can't coexist. When the argument concludes that two elements are mutually exclusive and you're tasked with weakening that argument, therefore, an answer showing how they could coexist will be correct.