Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 3 · Question 9

Incorrect. The conclusion is that the expensive long-term training is unwarranted, and an answer saying that doing nothing is just as effective as doing something aligns with that. This answer would be a consideration if the conclusion were that short-term training is recommended.

Incorrect. The conclusion takes this into account by referring to the long-term training as "generally" more expensive, so a few practitioners that break that trend won't undermine the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Whether someone is in long-term or short-term relaxation training, their anxiety tends to go away in a short-term period, so the more expensive long-term training isn't worth it.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument seemingly compares two methods of relaxation training—short- and long-term—but note the conclusion, which is just that the long-term training is unwarranted. While that relies in part on information about the short-term training, the conclusion itself is limited to discussing the long-term training, and so we should focus on arguing for that training in order to weaken an argument that it's unwarranted.

The reasoning behind the author's conclusion is that anxiety tends to go back down to normal levels in the short-term, so there's no need for the costly long-term training. However, there's no discussion that there aren't benefits to long-term training—especially since anxiety is a recurring condition that might benefit from an approach that looks at the long-term. Any answer that provides a reason to believe long-term training provides a valuable benefit—especially for recurring anxiety—will weaken the argument against this training.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the issue with skipping the long-term treatment. While anxiety may decrease in the short-term, it could recur. If long-term treatment deals better with these recurrences, then it could be warranted, undermining the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Always be sure to focus on the actual conclusion, not the conclusion that could have been. Here, the argument was very much comparing long- and short-term anxiety training, but the conclusion dropped a discussion of the latter and only cast judgment on the former. Since the conclusion was just a recommendation against long-term training, our anticipation focused on ways to undercut that—mainly by focusing on the benefits of that training.

Incorrect. If this is true, then the treatment itself doesn't matter, and one shouldn't pay for more expensive treatment!

Incorrect. There's no indication that there's any benefit to learning a variety of anxiety-combating techniques, so this answer doesn't affect the argument.