BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Therapists

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

Therapists

by gmatmachoman » Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:31 am
Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients' right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes. Reporting a client's unreported crimes violates the client's trust, but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.


Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?


(A) Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.

(B) Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.

(C) Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.

(D) The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.

(E) A therapist who has gained a violent criminal's trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.

OA after discussion.
This is a LSAT based CR!
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:55 am
i feel E is correct

the point at issue over here is the trust

(A) Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.
incorrect: suports the arg as therapist is appt by judiciary he should help the judicial body.

(B) Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.
incorrect: suports the arg as therapist has no control over his patient even he keeps his client trust. so he shd supp judiciary

(C) Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.
incorrect:talking abt future violent crimes. the point at issue over here is present crimnals

(D) The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.
incorrect: supp the arg

(E) A therapist who has gained a violent criminal's trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.
correct: if the therapist controls the trust inside the jail then the same he can get once criminal is released. hence it weakens
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:56 pm
IMO A what is OA?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:45 pm
outreach!! How much time u took to solve this one??
Top
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:38 pm
hey gmatmachoman, i took less than 2.5 mins to solve this one.
Weaken questions melt away if you can identify the conclusion, premise and the underlying assumption.

Conclusion: Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes.

Why does the author say this?
Premise: Reporting a client's unreported crimes violates the client's trust, but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.
so in effect therapist cannot be doing both.

Assumption: There is only one way to do this or rather the two are independent and cannot be performed together.
Now we need to hit on this assumption

(A) Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body. [Being assigned by judicial body does not imply that both can be performed at one shot. Eliminated!]

(B) Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison. [Comparison of criminals out of prison and in prison is not the point of discussion here. the issue is whether therapist can perform both the tasks together. Eliminated!]

(C) Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy. [ all victims need to have future right of confidentiality, but can the therapist perform both the tasks together? Eliminated!]

(D) The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality. [compensation? how is that related to our stimulus? we are concerned only about therapist and the 2 tasks. nothing less, nothing more. Eliminated!]

(E) A therapist who has gained a violent criminal’s trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses. [Bingo! here it address the assumption by stating that the 2 tasks are not independent. While performing one task if the therpaist can motivate the criminal not to perform the second task, then the therapist is performing both the tasks without violating either. My answer!]Hope this helps!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:16 pm
gmatmachoman wrote:Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients' right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes. Reporting a client's unreported crimes violates the client's trust, but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.


Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?


(A) Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.

(B) Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.

(C) Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.

(D) The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.

(E) A therapist who has gained a violent criminal's trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.

OA after discussion.
This is a LSAT based CR!
My take is A
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:01 am
gmatmachoman wrote:Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients' right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes. Reporting a client's unreported crimes violates the client's trust, but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.


OA after discussion.
This is a LSAT based CR!
IMO E.

The author concludes that the two activities cannot be done together.

E shows that there is a way to do both and hence, weakens the argument.
Regards,
Harsha
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:07 am
fibbonnaci wrote:
Assumption: There is only one way to do this or rather the two are independent and cannot be performed together.
Now we need to hit on this assumption
is this an assumption? I think this is the conclusion which is stated in the stimulus. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Harsha
Top
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:04 am
I have written the conclusion in my previous post. Conclusion is stated in the passage straight out. Assumption is an unstated fact that connects the premise to the conclusion.
What is the conclusion- therapists cannot both respect their clients and be concerned about victims safety.
Why does the author say this?
Premise: reporting violates client's trust but remaining silent is also dangerous to the general public.
Now only when the unstated premise or rather assumption is made by the author that the both cannot occur together can he conclude that therapists cannot be doing both the jobs at the same time.
That is an assumption and not the conclusion.

Hope i have clarified ur doubts!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:54 pm
fibbonnaci wrote:I have written the conclusion in my previous post. Conclusion is stated in the passage straight out. Assumption is an unstated fact that connects the premise to the conclusion.
The definitions are perfect!

But, let's look at your explanation once again.

You say that the conclusion is : "therapists cannot both respect their clients and be concerned about victims safety."

or when put simply : therapists cannot perform them together. Right?

Now, the "assumption" in your posts says: "There is only one way to do this or rather the two are independent and cannot be performed together."

aren't these same?

That's what I said in my post that option E directly hits the conclusion, which is unlike normal "weakening" questions.

No doubt that our answers are correct. I'm just dissecting the reasoning, which is pivotal .

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong :)
Regards,
Harsha
Top
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:55 am
harshavardhanc,
Weaken questions cannot directly attack the conclusion. Why? coz conclusion is not self formed.It rests on the data provided by the premise and assumptions. So in order to weaken an argument, the choice must weaken either the premise or the assumption. I agree with you point that the conclusion contains the statement- therpaists cannot perform them together, but how did this statement arrive? Remember conclusion just rests on the premise and assumption and cannot stand alone by itself.
Supoose if the argument was written this way:
premise 1: reporting the clients unreported crimes violates the clients trust but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.
Premise 2: There is no other way the 2 can be perfomed together.

Conclusion: Therpaists cannot perform the both events at the same time.

Now our premise 2 is the assumption. Technically speaking it is called the Defender assumption.
A defender assumption is different from the normal, supporter assumption
A supporter assumption- connects the missing piece in the jig saw puzzle whereas A defender assumption maintains the status quo of the argument.
Here in our case at hand too, we have a defender assumption. This maintains the status quo of the passage to mean that there is no other way the two can be performed together. An assumption need not always be a new piece of information that connects the premise and the conclusion. It can also serve as a guard, guarding the status quo of the argument. In this case the assumption performs the role of the guard. Note: Defender assumptions are usually applied in strong arguments. Weak arguments generally themselves have so many flaws that a supporter assumption is required to validate the conclusion.
One way of identifying which assumption is employed, is to check the strength of the argument. If the argument is strong then an assumption to maintain the status quo of the passage will generally be employed.

Hope this helps!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:15 am
fibbonnaci wrote:harshavardhanc,
Weaken questions cannot directly attack the conclusion. Why? coz conclusion is not self formed.It rests on the data provided by the premise and assumptions. So in order to weaken an argument, the choice must weaken either the premise or the assumption. I agree with you point that the conclusion contains the statement- therpaists cannot perform them together, but how did this statement arrive? Remember conclusion just rests on the premise and assumption and cannot stand alone by itself.
Supoose if the argument was written this way:
premise 1: reporting the clients unreported crimes violates the clients trust but remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.
Premise 2: There is no other way the 2 can be perfomed together.

Conclusion: Therpaists cannot perform the both events at the same time.

Now our premise 2 is the assumption. Technically speaking it is called the Defender assumption.
A defender assumption is different from the normal, supporter assumption
A supporter assumption- connects the missing piece in the jig saw puzzle whereas A defender assumption maintains the status quo of the argument.
Here in our case at hand too, we have a defender assumption. This maintains the status quo of the passage to mean that there is no other way the two can be performed together. An assumption need not always be a new piece of information that connects the premise and the conclusion. It can also serve as a guard, guarding the status quo of the argument. In this case the assumption performs the role of the guard. Note: Defender assumptions are usually applied in strong arguments. Weak arguments generally themselves have so many flaws that a supporter assumption is required to validate the conclusion.
One way of identifying which assumption is employed, is to check the strength of the argument. If the argument is strong then an assumption to maintain the status quo of the passage will generally be employed.

Hope this helps!
I completely understand what you have written above and do get the point you are trying to make, but....... (ooohh that but again..., I hate it but can't help :( )

In fact, weakening questions leave the conclusion to be targeted and and generally, in this type of question, success is realized by selecting an option which attacks the conclusion. Conclusion IS the most vulnerable part and needs to be hit . Also, there NEED not be an assumption always to have a conclusion. If the author feels that just the premise is enough, he can conclude based on it.

I'm sure that you must have read various texts on CR strategy, including Powerscore. You might want to check the section about "weakening" questions again.

I can see that you are viewing "weakening" as opposite to "strengthening" questions and hence, you are referencing the supporter / defender model. But remember that strengthening, as opposed to "weakening" type, will and does make use of assumptions. Whereas, weakening NEED and MAY not always do that.

So, this argument can go on and on and we both will enjoy it :), but it will be good if an instructor can also pitch in .
Regards,
Harsha
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:23 am
received a pm.

Technically, a weakener is a fact that renders the conclusion less likely to follow from the evidence, which I believe is Fibo's position.

Practically, this means that a weakener will also often render the conclusion less likely, which is what Harsha is saying.

How will a weakener render the conclusion less likely (to follow from the evidence)? On the GMAT, it will almost always be by attacking the assumption; if a fact tends to refute the assumption, then the conclusion is thereby less likely to follow from the evidence, and the argument is weakened.

Here:

The first sentence of the argument is conclusion: therapists cannot simultaneously respect client confidentiality and be sincerely concerned about the welfare of those who may be harmed by their clients. The second sentence is evidence.

The author's assumption is that the one piece of evidence he discusses is sufficient to establish that therapists cannot simultaneously respect client confidentiality and be concerned about social welfare.

Choice E directly targets this assumption, and is therefore a weakener.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:19 am
Just to clarify:
Also, there NEED not be an assumption always to have a conclusion. If the author feels that just the premise is enough, he can conclude based on it.
This is incorrect. In all assumption, strengthen/weaken, and flaw questions, the arguer makes an assumption. If the author feels that the premise is sufficient, then that itself is an assumption (that's what happened in this argument). If there weren't an assumption, then the author's conclusion would be necessarily true-- a valid inference; and, of course, valid inferences don't stand in need of strengthening, and cannot be weakened.
I can see that you are viewing "weakening" as opposite to "strengthening" questions and hence, you are referencing the supporter / defender model.
I am not familiar with supporter/defender model, but weakening an argument is exactly the "opposite" of strengthening. In fact, this is why we can use denial test in stn/wkn questions: if the opposite of a fact (ie, a denied answer choice) strengthens, then the fact itself (ie, original answer choice) is a weakener.

For example, if an answer choice stated that "a study was NOT representative", then that will clearly weaken the argument based on that study. The denied fact would be "a study WAS representative", and that would cleary strengthen the argument that was based on that study.

As a matter of strategy, using denial test is often helpful in strengthen question's answer choices that use negative language such as "not"; in these cases, it is often easier to see what impact a denied fact will have on the argument (as opposed to the original fact.)
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:38 pm
Testluv wrote:
As a matter of strategy, using denial test is often helpful in strengthen question's answer choices that use negative language such as "not"; in these cases, it is often easier to see what impact a denied fact will have on the argument (as opposed to the original fact.)
Thanks Testluv! That's very insightful! But, I'll continue this discussion as I need to quench my thirst. :)

Consider this argument :

....hence, X can be accomplished by Y.

The author here concludes that to reach X, there is one and only one method - Y. He assumes non-existence of any alternate way to reach X. Weakener in this case is an option which shows that there are, in fact, other ways to reach X. We hit the ASSUMPTION : "non-existence of any alternate way".

I'm not denying that this type of weakener question exists, as I've come across such a type may a times.


Now consider this :

....hence, there is NO way to accomplish X.

The author concludes that there is NO way X can be accomplished. Weakener in this case is an option, which shows that there exists a way to do so. We hit the "non-existence" part again, but here it is contained, rather is the conclusion.

The point which I'm trying to make is that there IS a difference between the two cases. I know that assumptions are unstated and we are precisely hitting the invisble part in the first case. But in the second one (and our question), we are clearly targeting something which we are able to see in black letters on our screen.

Please, think about it and let me know your views on this one. It is definitely food for thought.
Regards,
Harsha
Top
Post new topic Post Reply