Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. The Psychologist believes that the opposing psychologists are mistaken in their argument, and those psychologists have a conclusion that is anti—Freudian. So while we don't know that the author and Freud are completely aligned, we know that she doesn't agree with the anti—Freudian view of the other psychologists. The statement in question comes after the pivot to her argument, and thus that statement isn't supporting the opposing point.

Incorrect. That conclusion is never explicitly stated in the stimulus, so this answer mischaracterizes that argument.

Incorrect. The Psychologist does believe that the anti—Freudian psychologists have an incomplete explanation of dreaming, but she doesn't argue or conclude that Freud does, as well, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The Psychologist believes that the anti—Freudian psychologists have an incomplete explanation of dreaming, but that doesn't mean she believes forming such a complete explanation is difficult. As such, the statement in question can't illustrate that!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Some other psychologists: Electrical discharges cause dreams, so they're purely physiological, and they don't reveal anything about the dreamer

Freud: Dreams reveal something about the character of the dreamer

Psychologist: Dream content varies a lot, so even if electrical discharges explain the physiology of dreams, they don't give a complete explanation, and thus those other psychologists are wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
Three viewpoints in one question! It's always fun when the LSAT ups the ante a bit. And when we say fun, we mean . . . not fun. Terrible. Horrible.

But, in general, upping the ante on the LSAT means just adding another layer to what it's already doing—not doing something wholly new. So even though we're used to having only two viewpoints max, we can use those skills and just apply them to all three viewpoints here.

The argument starts with both an opposing point and the author's opinion of it. That opposing point—the view of some psychologists—is an argument with premises and a conclusion. However, the author also lets us know that she thinks this argument isn't a good one—it's mistakenly" argued. So we need to tease out this opinion, as the author's opinion of an opposing point is usually the main point of the argument.

In discussing the opposing point, the author also brings up another viewpoint—that of Freud. She highlights that Freud and the psychologists disagree on what dreams say about the character of the person having the dream. At this point, we know that those two viewpoints are opposed, and that the author is opposed to the other psychologists, but this doesn't mean that we can commit her to agreeing with Freud. She could think the other psychologists are wrong for other reasons!

After all of that, we get the pivot to her argument ("But . . . "). It starts with a premise ("since") which is the statement in question, and then moves on to a conclusion she's drawing. That conclusion is meant to show that the argument made by the other psychologists is, at best, a partial explanation of the phenomenon under discussion (dreams), so it supports her opinion that the opposing point is mistaken.

Therefore, the statement in question is a premise of the author that supports the intermediate conclusion, which in turn supports the author's opinion of the opposing point (that it's mistaken). However, since this is question #24, let's be flexible as we analyze the answers, and also let's not be shocked if Freud ends up being referenced!

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes the statement in question as a premise that attacks an opposing point. Since the author's argument is designed to prove that the opposing point is mistaken, this answer is looking good. To work through this answer, let's match up ideas. The claim that some psychologists use to argue against the view of Freud is that dreams result from electrical charges (thus showing that they're purely physiological and reveal nothing of the person's character). The author pivots to saying that dreams vary widely, and uses this to conclude that electrical charges can't fully explain the variety of dreams. So the statement in question is used to undermine the claim made by the anti—Freudian psychologists to argue against Freud, and thus this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Viewpoints are always important on the LSAT. Be sure you're tracking the various viewpoints throughout an argument, even when individual statements representing the beliefs of that viewpoint are split up. Here, there were two complications on that—a third viewpoint (Freud), and the author's opinion showed up in the first few words and then not again until halfway through the argument.