PT 66 2: 4

Test: PT 66
Question: Section 2: Question 4
Section: Logical Reasoning
First words: "Traditional “talk” therapy, in which..."
Type: Fails to Consider [Possibility]
Answer: B
Your Answer: Enter

Strategy: As you read the stimulus, identify the evidence and the conclusion, which will be too "strong" or generalized. Pre-phrase a statement of the link between the inadequate evidence and the too-strong conclusion. The answer will negate a possibility that could destroy that prephrased link.

Explanation:

BridgeThus
ConclusionPharmacological interventions will someday be as effective a treatment as talk therapy is.
Type of Conclusionprediction
Generalized prephrase of overlooked inferenceWhy, just because talk therapy produces chemical changes, will pharmacological interventions be able to approximate it?

  1. This is wrong because whether or not other neurochemical changes lead to behavioral improvement is irrelevant, and does not help explain why pharmacological interventions will match talk therapy.
  2. Keywords that allow elimination: all ... changes produce ... psychological changes

  3. This is correct because pharmacological interventions only affect a patient's neurochemical responses, and thus--if it they are going to match talk therapy's effectiveness--the argument cannot stand if talk therapy is effective through other mechanisms.

  4. This is wrong because it is too strong, does not address the argument's line of reasoning, and introduces the extraneous concept of psychological change. The only metric provided in the stimulus is about the patient's behavior, and thus psychological change is irrelevant. Additionally, if talk therapy is not effective, then pharmacological interventions are already at least "as" effective.
  5. Keywords that allow elimination: therapy has not been effective ... psychological change

  6. This is wrong because it is too strong: the argument does not need therapy/psychology and neuroscience/pharmacology to become equally effective in all circumstances, let alone indistinguishable. The argument only states that talk therapy, because it acts by changing brain chemistry, will someday be replicated by drugs that similarly change brain chemistry.
  7. Keywords that allow elimination: psychology and neuroscience will .. be indistinguishable

  8. This is wrong because it introduces the extraneous concept of expense. The conclusion is only about relative effectiveness of drugs versus therapy on patient improvement, not cost effectiveness.
  9. Keywords that allow elimination: less expensive way



    Ask us about this question!

    comments powered by Disqus