Addiction has been defined as dependence on and abuse of a psychoac

Trick: learn to summarize in your own words. A definition was made that addiction is a function of dependence AND abuse of drugs.
Conclusion: the definition of addiction is incorrect
Pre thinking: negate the conclusion: Under what conditions would definition of addiction be correct? Ans: when someone depends and abuse simultaneously
Hence; If someone does only one of the above e.g. Abuse and get get addicted, then definition of addiction would be incorrect, and conclusion in Stem would hold. Hence C

Someone did one : depends on the drug and get get addicted.

Posted from my mobile device

The please read the first sentence of the argument.

“Addiction” has been defined as “dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance.”
The conclusion of the passage is that "Therefore, the definition of “addiction” is incorrect."

Dependence and abuse do not always go hand in hand, however. For example, cancer patients can become dependent on morphine to relieve their pain, but this is not abusing the drug.

Now the argument says that abuse and dependence do not occur simultaneously. It gives an example of cancer patients how they are dependent on morphine to relieve their pain. If patient are depended on morphine, this does not constitute abuse. So essentially cancer patients must be dependent and addicted to morphine. So that the conclusion can be proved valid.

B is just a paraphrase of the argument we know from the argument that cancer patients become dependent on morphine. So this option is redundant.

Hope it helps.

(A) cancer patients never abuse morphine

…incorrect
we don’t know for sure, here we can only be offered the information from passage that “cancer patients can become dependent on morphine to relieve their pain, but this is not abusing the drug”


(B) cancer patients often become dependent on morphine

…incorrect
its just a observed phenomenon in the example offer to the situation of cancer patients


(C) cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are addicted to it

…..correct


Go backward from conclusion to the argument…..

conclusion: original argument(definition) is incorrect
………….here we should think more deliberately as to why the author would think that the original definition is incorrect in order for us to find clues to the correct choice in this question



original argument/definition:
“definition” of addiction must (A) dependence+(B)abuse
-----(A)&(B) must both occur
but the conclusion consider it wrong



later argument ---to offer another view to the original definition :
(A) dependence & (B)abuse not always relate to each other
…..please note “this argument is still within the scope of the definition of addiction”, I was wrong at this point, thus this argument holds that (A)dependence occur or(B) abuse occur, as long as either one happen, could constitute the definition of addiction, and we can prove this from the conclusion which states that the definition of addiction is incorrect



And we all know that “assumption is where the argument depends upon”

if we want to find the assumption to the “later argument and its example offered”, firstly check the example which the question states

this question use morphine dependent on cancer patients as example
dependent--->not drug abuse(but still constitute the definition
of “addiction”, this is the most subtle part difficult to notice for the kind of people like me)
----------------->contradict to the original argument which demand that these two factors should both occur simultaneously to constitute the definition of “addiction”, but support the later argument thus could constituite
its assumption



(D) cancer patients who abuse a drug are dependent on it

…incorrect
….this choice has the same problem as (E)

(E) cancer patients cannot depend on morphine without abusing it

…incorrect
…parallel to original argument but opposite to later argument, thus cannot constitute the assumption of later argument

Addiction --> Dependence + Abuse
For cancer patients morphine is,
Addiction (NOT SPECIFIED) --> Dependence (YES) + Abuse (NO)

After stating this, author concludes that definition of addiction is incorrect.

Which means the addiction in case of morphine for cancer patient is a YES. That is the assumption made by the author.
Addiction (YES) --> Dependence (YES) + Abuse (NO)

“Addiction” has been defined as “dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance.” Dependence and abuse do not always go hand in hand, however. For example, cancer patients can become dependent on morphine to relieve their pain, but this is not abusing the drug. Correspondingly, a person can abuse a drug without being dependent on it. Therefore, the definition of “addiction” is incorrect.

The relevance of the example of cancer patients to the argument depends on the assumption that

­

From Kaplan LSAT explanation -
"The author uses evidence that dependence on and abuse of a drug needn’t go hand in hand
in order to conclude that the definition of “addiction” must be incorrect. In so arguing, she
assumes that the cancer patients who, she claims, depend on but do not abuse morphine,
are actually addicted to morphine. This assumption is so simple you might have missed it,
but look at it this way: If those cancer patients were not addicted to morphine, the author
couldn’t use them as evidence that the definition of “addiction” is incorrect.
(A) is tricky, but it’s not assumed. Strictly speaking, it’s possible that, contrary to (A), the
cancer patients who depend on morphine do occasionally abuse it—that wouldn’t affect
the author’s claim that dependence and abuse don’t “always” go hand in hand.
(B) No; the author states that cancer patients can become addicted to morphine, and then
goes on to use this case to show that this doesn’t always lead to abuse. Nothing is assumed
about whether cancer patients “often” become dependent on morphine; even if it’s a rare
occurrence, that wouldn’t affect the stream of logic.
(D) is a misreading. The author argues that cancer patients can be dependent on morphine
without abusing it; there’s no assumption about cancer patients who do abuse drugs, since
they’re not part of her argument.
(E) As Descartes would declare, “Au contraire!” If the author assumed that cancer patients
can’t depend on morphine without abusing it, that would destroy her argument that abuse
and dependency don’t necessarily go together."

Posted from my mobile device

The explanation for option C is wrong.

If A -> B, then not B-> not A holds true. What you are saying is not A -> not B. That's incorrect.

Premise - The argument starts with a definition. Addiction = dependence and abuse of drugs. [Both the conditions should be true, according to the definition]
But, the argument goes on to give 2 examples to prove that this definition is incorrect.

Sticking to the example in question. The cancer patients. "cancer patients can become dependent on morphine to relieve their pain, but this is not abusing the drug".
According to the definition, you would call addiction only when both the conditions are satisfied, i.e. dependence and abuse. So the argument is setting the picture that Cancer patients are both dependent and abusing and that's why they called 'addicts' and that is exactly what the argument is trying to disprove.

Therefore, the assumption in case of cancer patients is that they are both dependent and abusive. That's what option C says.

Negation technique : Cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are not addicted to it.
If that's the case, then the example presented makes no sense. The example can't be used to hurt the definition of 'addiction' in the first place.

Hope this helps

Premise 1:the definition of "addiction" is dependence on AND abuse of~~.

Premise 2: But sometimes dependence and abuse do not come together(hand in hand). The author used the example of cancer patients to support this premise.

It says cancer patients become dependent on morphine, but they are not abusing it. Relatively, one person can abuse it, but can not become dependent on it.

The conclusion: The definition of addiction is incorrect.

The author is assuming that the two things (dependence and abuse) happen simultaneously is incorrect. The two things can happen separately, only one thing happens can also be defined as addiction. Only option C says this.

Posted from my mobile device

Addiction= Dependence and Abuse. As per the conclusion, both need not happen at once. It means if a person is dependent, he need not be abusing, or if he is abusing, he need not be dependent.
Applying the same in cancer patient's case: Addiction = Dependence and Abuse
Given that they depend on morphine and don't abuse
So, the only element left in the equation to assume about is "Addiction"
Author must be assuming something about addiction.

(A) cancer patients never abuse morphine. While this option could be a strong contender, it is already given in the premise that the patients don't abuse. This option is an assumption made by the author while arriving at the premise but not the at the conclusion directly.
(B) cancer patients often become dependent on morphine. Already given in the premise
(C) cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are addicted to it. Unless the author assumes that the patients are addicted he cannot state that conclusion
(D) cancer patients who abuse a drug are dependent on it. Already given in the premise
(E) cancer patients cannot depend on morphine without abusing it. Goes opposite to what author states

As per the statement, 2 necessary conditions are provided for the definition of “Addiction “
1. Dependent on
2. Abuse of

The following premise states that Abuse and Dependence do not go Hand in Hand

The Cancer Patients Example states:

Patients are Dependent on Morphine, but this is not abusing

As per the Definition of Addiction, author presupposes Patients dependent on Morphine (necessary cond.1) are addicted to it (necessary cond. 2)

Therefore, citing the Example above, he demands for change in the definition of Addiction

Option C

Addiction” has been defined as “dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance.” Dependence and abuse do not always go hand in hand, however. For example, cancer patients can become dependent on morphine to relieve their pain, but this is not abusing the drug. Correspondingly, a person can abuse a drug without being dependent on it. Therefore, the definition of “addiction” is incorrect.

The relevance of the example of cancer patients to the argument depends on the assumption that

(A) cancer patients never abuse morphine - WRONG. Then what?? It can't be so. Blanket statement.

(B) cancer patients often become dependent on morphine - WRONG. The problem is with the word 'often'. But doesn't passage already says so by using the word 'can', even though 'can' can be a part of 'often'. But then it does no good.

(C) cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are addicted to it - CORRECT. If not dependent then not addicted. There you go.

(D) cancer patients who abuse a drug are dependent on it - WRONG. Goes exactly opposite to what we need.

(E) cancer patients cannot depend on morphine without abusing it - WRONG., Like A only.

Answer C.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.