Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. The opposing point can be said to be based on a principle (difficult/time consuming things are the most effective), but the Psychologist doesn't introduce a competing principle that contradicts that. Rather, she introduces an analogous scenario that calls that principle into question—and an analogous scenario isn't a competing principle.

Incorrect. The premises of the opposing argument are that Freudian psychotherapy is difficult and time consuming. The Psychologist doesn't call that into question (and, in fact, relies on it by bringing in an analogous scenario that also involves something that's difficult and time consuming).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Those who say Freudian psychotherapy is best because it's difficult and time-consuming are making a bad argument, since a car repair shop that took a long time to repair cars wouldn't be considered the best shop.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument uses a comparable situation to show that a given argument is a bad one—a common form of argumentation. Let's find an answer choice that highlights the Psychologist uses an analogous argument to highlight the shortcomings of a given argument.

Also, note that the Psychologist doesn't state that Freudian psychotherapy isn't the most effective—just that the given argument backing up its effectiveness is invalid.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice highlights that the Psychologist calls the argument's conclusion into question by bringing up an analogous scenario where the same conclusion would "never be accepted." Using an analogy to point out the flaws in an argument is a common method of reasoning (sometimes referred to by the fancy Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum).

Key Takeaway:
Methods of Reasoning repeat on the LSAT, so if you can categorize a given argument as part of a wider pattern, you can anticipate an answer with speed and accuracy. It can be helpful to keep a few examples of different types of methods of reasoning to review so that they stay top of mind!

Incorrect. The Psychologist uses an analogy to prove her point, she doesn't claim that the opposing point is using a bad analogy.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of cause and effect in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.