Traditional "talk" therapy, in which a patient with a psychological

From Powerscore:


This stimulus discusses “talk therapy,” which, as its name suggests, refers to therapy in which a patient discusses his or her psychological disorder with a trained therapist. This type of therapy, we are told, causes chemical changes in the brain that seem to correspond with improvements in behavior:
Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect

Talk Therapy ..... :arrow: ..... Chemical Changes, Better Behavior

The author concludes that doctors will eventually be able to bring about the same behavioral improvements by changing the brain’s neurochemistry with pharmaceuticals as with talk therapy’s lengthy sessions:
Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect

Pharmaceuticals ..... :arrow: ..... Chemical Changes, Better Behavior
In reaching the conclusion that pharmaceuticals will eventually be as good as therapy, the author is attributing the noted behavioral improvements entirely to the chemical changes that take place in the brain.

The stimulus is followed by an Assumption question, so the correct answer choice will provide an assumption that the author relies upon in reaching the conclusion that pharmacological intervention will eventually be able to take the place of talk therapy. To confirm the correct answer choice, apply the Assumption Negation Technique by logically negating, or taking away, the assumption, and noting the effects on the author’s argument; when negating a given assumption weakens an argument, it becomes clear that the argument relies upon that assumption.

Answer choice (A): This is not an assumption on which the author’s conclusion relies. To confirm this to be an incorrect answer choice, we can apply the Assumption Negation Technique, take away the assumption, and note whether the negated version weakens the author’s conclusion:
Not all neurochemical changes bring about psychological changes.
This is a pretty limited claim—basically, that some (that is, at least one) neurochemical changes do not bring about psychological changes. Even if this were the case, this would not weaken the author’s argument that pharmacological intervention will eventually bring about the same benefits as talk therapy—this conclusion does not require that every single chemical change be associated with psychological changes.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice; the author assumes that the chemical changes are the sole cause of the noted improvements in behavior—and that talk therapy is not a necessity in that equation. To confirm this as an assumption on which the author’s argument relies, we can negate, or take away, this choice and note whether the author’s argument suffers:
Behavioral improvements do not occur only through chemical changes.
This negated version weakens the author’s argument, which relies on the idea that pharmaceuticals can cause chemical changes and therefore replace talk therapy. If, as this negated version provides, the behavior changes require more than just chemical changes, it is less likely that pharmacological intervention will someday be able to replace talk therapy.

Answer choice (C): The author does not assume that talk therapy is ineffective, but rather that it can be replaced by pharmacological intervention. To confirm that this is not an assumption on which the author’s argument relies, we can logically negate the assumption to see whether the argument suffers as a result. The negated version of this answer choice would be:
Talk therapy has been effective in bringing about psychological change.
The negated version of this answer choice does not weaken the author’s conclusion about pharmacological intervention, so this cannot be an assumption that is required by the author’s argument.

Answer choice (D): The assumption presented here is that if neurochemistry is associated with improved behavior, then psychology and neuroscience will eventually be indistinguishable from one another. In the stimulus, the author’s conclusion is that behavior will eventually be able to be modified through pharmacological intervention alone—but that is not the same as claiming that psychology and neuroscience will eventually be the same thing.

Answer choice (E): This choice discusses the relative expense associated with different approaches to the treatment of psychological disorders, but that issue is not mentioned or alluded to in the stimulus; this cannot be an assumption on which the author’s argument relies. To confirm this answer choice as incorrect, we can apply Assumption Negation and note whether or not the argument from the stimulus is weakened. The negated version of this answer choice is as follows:

Direct intervention is not likely to be a less expensive way to deal with disorders.

This would have no effect on the author’s conclusion, confirming that the author’s argument does not require this choice’s assumption

Posted from my mobile device

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.