Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme in stating that "all" neurochemical changes impact someone's psychology. As long as the noted neurochemical changes affect a patient's psychology, it doesn't have to be true that all chemical changes would.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Talk therapy changes brain chemicals, which corresponds with a change in behavior. Therefore, therapists will eventually be able to treat these patients with drugs.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument starts to talk about cures or treatment, you should start thinking about causality. Especially in this case, as there was a premise that talked about one thing "correspond[ing]" to another—clear correlative language.

The argument here concludes that drugs will soon be able to cure the same mental problems as talk therapy. Why? Because changes in brain neurochemistry that accompany talk therapy correspond with changes in behavior.

However, while the talk therapy "produces" these changes in the brain's chemistry (a causal statement), the correspondence with the behavior changes is just a correlation to that change in chemistry. It's possible that the talk therapy works to change behavior through other mechanisms, or it's a combination of chemical changes and psychological ones unrelated to brain chemistry.

In concluding that drugs can replace talk therapy, the argument is assuming that the means by which it works is limited to those biochemical changes, so we should look for an answer that establishes that as true.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the connection between the chemical changes and the behavioral ones. If talk therapy influences behavior through means other than just the chemical changes, then drugs may not be able to treat it and the argument falls apart. This answer is therefore necessary for the argument to hold together.

Key Takeaway:
Cures or treatments are inherently causal, so seeing an argument that concludes something can be used in such a manner should get you thinking about correlation/causation flaws. Additionally, this argument has a keyword introducing a correlation—"corresponds."

Incorrect. The reason the stimulus sets out to prefer drugs to talk therapy is that the latter is a "lengthy intermediary," so it doesn't have to be ineffective for the argument to work. There's still a reason to prefer using drugs even if it is effective.

Incorrect. This answer is way too extreme. "[I]ndistinguishable" is too much—there can still be distinctions between them even if psychologists are treating patients with neuroscience.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't delve into expense, so it's not required for it to work.