PrepTest 158

This answer choice brings up a new idea: a patient focusing on "other people's troubles." But the gap in this argument was only about therapists helping their patients and the causes of a patient's troubles. To address that gap, we don't need to establish anything about a patient focusing on "other people's troubles." Rather than addressing the gap in the argument, this answer choice creates a new gap by introducing a new idea.

This answer choice has the type of weak language ("at least some") we often see in correct answer choices to this type of question. However, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion.

Remember, this argument concludes that therapists need to focus on a patient's relationships to help the patient heal. To reach that conclusion, do we need to know that some patients won't be healed even if the therapist focuses on a patient's relationships? Of course not.

In fact, the negation test will confirm that answer choice is not necessary. Suppose it wasn't true that some patients won't be healed even if the therapist focuses on a patient's relationships. Or, better put, suppose all patients were healed when the therapist focuses on a patient's relationships. In that case, is the conclusion now untrue? Definitely not. We'd only strengthen the conclusion if we establish a consistent correlation between healing and focusing on relationships. Therefore, this answer choice is not necessary to the argument and should be eliminated.

This answer choice has the type of weak language ("at least some") we often see in correct answer choices to this type of question. Plus, this answer choice gets very close to addressing the gap in the argument. But this answer choice leaves out the therapist's role. Remember, this conclusion argues that the therapist will help the patient heal if the therapist focuses on the patient making positive changes in relationships. This answer choice doesn't address how a therapist can help a patient find relief from troubles, so it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with a Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Not all therapy patients' troubles have internal causes. Many of their troubles are partially caused by relationships. Therefore, if a therapist wants to help a patient heal, the therapist needs to focus on changing the patient's relationships.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that:
   1. Strengthens the conclusion of the argument, and
   2. Is necessary for the conclusion of the argument
      1. Can use "negation test" to double-check: if this answer choice isn't true, does the conclusion become untrue as well? If so, it's necessary for the conclusion of the argument, and it is the correct answer

Answer Anticipation:
On Strengthen with a Necessary Premise questions, it's our job to find the answer ch'oice that: (a) strengthens the conclusion of the argument and (b) must be true to draw the conclusion. Finding an answer choice that matches both criteria is, at first, very challenging for many test-takers.

But after completing many of these questions (in some cases many, many questions), astute LSATers begin to identify a pattern. For most Strengthen with a Necessary Premise questions, the author will introduce a new, important idea in the conclusion. This idea will not be discussed in any of the premises. In introducing this new idea, the author creates a gap between the premises and the conclusion. The correct answer will address the gap between the premises and the new idea, often simply linking the two concepts. After all, bridging the gap — at least partially — will strengthen the argument, and showing that the gap is fixable is necessary to draw the conclusion.

This conclusion brings up a psychotherapist "help[ing] the patient heal," an idea never discussed in the premises. This means there's a gap between the premises and this new idea about "helping a patient heal." The correct answer will almost certainly address this gap. Expect the correct answer to address the gap between "helping a patient heal" and the premise that a patient's troubles don't have only internal causes or the gap between "helping a patient heal" and the premise that a patient's troubles are partially caused by relationships with others.

(The other part of the conclusion — the part about focusing on changing the patient's relationship with others — relates to the claim that a patient's troubles are partially caused by relationships with others. So there isn't a significant gap to address there, and we don't need to worry about it.)

Finally, we can double-check answer choices with the negation test if we need to. To apply the negation test, we can simply ask, "If this answer choice weren't true, does the conclusion become untrue as well?" If so, that answer choice is necessary for the argument's conclusion. If the conclusion could still be true, then that answer choice is wrong.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice establishes a link between the conclusion's new idea (a therapist helping a patient heal) and one of the premises (that patient's troubles do not have solely internal causes). By bridging the gap between the two discrete terms, this answer choice strengthens the argument. If a therapist can't help a patient by focusing on the internal causes of their troubles, the therapist will instead need to help patients change their relationships.

Moreover, the negation test will confirm that this answer choice is necessary to the argument. Suppose it wasn't true that therapists can't help their patients simply by focusing on the internal causes of the patients' troubles. Or, stated another way, suppose therapists could help patients by addressing the internal causes of the patients' troubles. In that case, is the conclusion now untrue? Yes. A therapist wouldn't have to focus on changing the patient's relationships in that case. Therefore, this answer choice is necessary to the argument and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Experienced LSATers simplify Strengthen with a Necessary Premise question by focusing on the gap between the premise and the new term in the conclusion. On this particular question, only one answer choice addressed that gap at all.

This weakens the conclusion and is incorrect. Therapists helping patients heal by focusing on the purely internal troubles would show that therapists don't need to focus on helping their patients make positive relationship changes.