PrepTest 121

Incorrect. The argument's conclusion is about "most" people, not everyone, so if there are other problems that take longer to cure, that's not a problem for the argument as long as they're relatively rare.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Study - A large diverse group went through weekly therapy sessions for 60 different problems
Results - 75% of the 60 problems cleared up within 50 weeks
Conclusion - 50 weekly sessions are all that most people need

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is based on a study, so we should start by considering a correlation/causation flaw, and a sampling flaw.

The sample is noted as being large and diverse, so there likely isn't a sampling flaw here. And the conclusion isn't causal, or reliant on a causal assumption, so that also misses the mark.

The argument also discusses both percentages and numbers, but it doesn't jump from one to the other. It talks about the number of sessions and the percentage of problems solved in that number, but it doesn't jump between them. And, in fact, since we know the number of problems as well as the percentage solved by these sessions, we could calculate what number of them were solved by the sessions (though we won't make you). So there's no Percent vs. Amount flaw.

With those flaws ruled out, we need to look elsewhere, and the conclusion is always a good place to look. The conclusion is about what "most" people need, so we need a premise of some strength to support that. And we do get a premise about over 50% . . . of the problems. 75% of the problems are solved with 50 weekly therapy sessions, but that doesn't mean that over 50% of people will have their problems solved. It could be that the 25% of problems that weren't solved in that time period are also by far the most common psychological problems, and thus more than 50% of the people in the study suffered from them and weren't cured within the time period in question. Let's find an answer highlighting this shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the shift in the argument between 75% of problems being treatable in 60 weekly sessions and 50+% of people being treatable in that number of sessions. If one of the 25% of problems that wasn't treatable in that time period afflicts over 50% of the people, then even if 75% of the problems can be resolved in 60 weeks, most people would need more treatments.

Key Takeaway:
There's nothing wrong with seeing a few elements that tend to be flawed in an argument and analyzing them for an error in reasoning but coming up short. In fact, if you are missing some of these tells, then that's a problem because you're likely to miss a flaw when one does show up!

Incorrect. Even if someone was afflicted by multiple problems, as long as they both fall within the 75% of problems that can be treated in 60 weeks, then the argument still holds. Therefore, the argument doesn't assume that people have just a single psychological problem.

Incorrect. It seems as if the therapy in question is effective since it treated 75% of psychological conditions in about a little over a year.

Incorrect. Even if they did have more problems than average, that helps the argument. If the people with the most problems can be treated in 60 sessions, then people with fewer problems should also be able to be treated in that time period. This is one of the cases where a certain skewed sample would make the conclusion look even better!