|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 22
|
While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy [#permalink]
 14 May 2012, 06:34
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical- that is, medicinal means.This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malfunction. Conclusion :: This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malfunction. Premise::While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical- that is, medicinal means. Guys my question is why this argument is weak.
_________________
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1746
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 49
Kudos [?]:
150
[0], given: 108
|
Re: Why this argument is weak? [#permalink]
14 May 2012, 17:56
Let's it put it in simple words: Premise: Chemical treatment is BETTER when we want to cure psychoses. Conclusion: Psychoses are not related with enviromental factors. The premise doesn´t exclude that enviromental factors can cause psychoses. It only says that chemical treatment is better. Have you read the Powerscore CR Bible?, it could be a great help for you.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Pill Instructor
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 918
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 87
Kudos [?]:
227
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: Why this argument is weak? [#permalink]
14 May 2012, 19:23
1
This post received
KUDOS
metallicafan, One approach is to ask the challenge question. Then see if we can make the argument fall apart. HOW IS IT THAT...psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors? How do we know that? It must rest upon the assumption that....neuroses was connected to environmental factors. And since the treatment for neuroses is different from the treatment psychoses (as we now know), then the author is making a stretch connection that neuroses is connected to environmental factors, so psychoses is NOT connected to environmental factors. The author is making the assumption that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors--- based upon the fact that the treatments for psychoses and neuroses are different...therefore there causes possibly are different too. This connection is a jump. It's weak because it's not necessarily true. We can make the argument fall apart by coming up with an example where psychoses WAS INDEED caused by environmental factors. So, the statement that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors is not necessarily true. We find holes in the argument and make it fall apart.
_________________
      
... and more
Zeke Lee, GMAT Pill Study Method (Study Less. Score More.) | Download Ebook
- How A McKinsey Analyst Struggled with GMAT for 2 Yrs
- GMAT Score From 650 to 760 + 25 Minutes left on the exam! Wow!
GMAT Pill Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 22
|
Re: Why this argument is weak? [#permalink]
14 May 2012, 20:14
metallicafan wrote: Let's it put it in simple words: Premise: Chemical treatment is BETTER when we want to cure psychoses. Conclusion: Psychoses are not related with enviromental factors. The premise doesn´t exclude that enviromental factors can cause psychoses. It only says that chemical treatment is better. Have you read the Powerscore CR Bible?, it could be a great help for you. Thanks for reply Yes i am reading it these days but really weak in analysis of argument as weak or strong
_________________
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 22
|
Re: Why this argument is weak? [#permalink]
14 May 2012, 20:26
gmatpill wrote: metallicafan,
One approach is to ask the challenge question. Then see if we can make the argument fall apart.
HOW IS IT THAT...psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors?
How do we know that?
It must rest upon the assumption that....neuroses was connected to environmental factors. And since the treatment for neuroses is different from the treatment psychoses (as we now know), then the author is making a stretch connection that neuroses is connected to environmental factors, so psychoses is NOT connected to environmental factors.
The author is making the assumption that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors--- based upon the fact that the treatments for psychoses and neuroses are different...therefore there causes possibly are different too.
This connection is a jump. It's weak because it's not necessarily true. We can make the argument fall apart by coming up with an example where psychoses WAS INDEED caused by environmental factors. So, the statement that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors is not necessarily true. We find holes in the argument and make it fall apart. Thanks for giving the right direction
_________________
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 22
|
Re: Why this argument is weak? [#permalink]
14 May 2012, 21:34
gmatpill wrote: metallicafan,
One approach is to ask the challenge question. Then see if we can make the argument fall apart.
HOW IS IT THAT...psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors?
How do we know that?
It must rest upon the assumption that....neuroses was connected to environmental factors. And since the treatment for neuroses is different from the treatment psychoses (as we now know), then the author is making a stretch connection that neuroses is connected to environmental factors, so psychoses is NOT connected to environmental factors.
The author is making the assumption that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors--- based upon the fact that the treatments for psychoses and neuroses are different...therefore there causes possibly are different too.
This connection is a jump. It's weak because it's not necessarily true. We can make the argument fall apart by coming up with an example where psychoses WAS INDEED caused by environmental factors. So, the statement that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors is not necessarily true. We find holes in the argument and make it fall apart. Can we say arguments with strong conclusions are generally weak.
_________________
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why this argument is weak?
[#permalink]
14 May 2012, 21:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
