Two doctrines have greatly influential in this century. The first

Question

Two doctrines have been greatly influential in this century. The first holds that the explanation of any historical event must appeal to economic factors. The second attempts to account psychologically for all historical events especially in terms of early childhood experience. Both doctrines, however, are mistaken. Certainly, there have been events that were due both to economic forces and to the nature of the early childhood experiences of the major participants in the event.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following.

A) The first doctrine precludes any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events.
B) The second doctrine places importance only on childhood experiences.
C) Historical events are influenced as much or as little by economic factors as by psychological factors.
D) One is likely to find that both economic and psychological explanations have been proposed for any given historical event. 
E) Appeals to both economics and psychological factors are needed to understand any historical event properly.

Source: LSAT.

IanStewart · Accepted Answer

That explanation is clearly not right, and it doesn't correctly convey the logic behind the question. The argument doesn't provide any evidence at all to explain why either doctrine might be mistaken, and we can't conclude from the stem that one doctrine is clearly wrong while the other might be right.

The question says, simplifying: One theory explains history using economics. Another theory explains history using psychology. Both theories are wrong because both economics and psychology are important if we want to explain history.

The conclusion, "both theories are wrong", doesn't make much sense here  unless  the first theory also claims "economics is the *only* way to explain history" and the second theory claims "psychology is the *only* way to explain history". That's what is missing to make this into any kind of logical argument -- the argument is assuming the two theories are absolutely incompatible. As written, unless we insert that assumption, it's not much of an argument at all.

Answers A and B both look promising. There's a subtle distinction between them though. Answer A says the economic theory "precludes" non-economic factors. The word "preclude" means to "make impossible" or "absolutely rule out". So Answer A tells us that the economic doctrine cannot be combined with the psychology doctrine. That's exactly what we're looking for. It's a better answer than B, which only says the psychology doctrine "places importance only on childhood experiences." The psychology doctrine might still admit that economic factors are relevant, but of lesser importance.

It really comes down to the definition of "preclude", which makes A a stronger statement than B, and we need a strong assumption here for the argument to make any sense.

sid993 · Answer

Wrong answer. The author assumes both factors have influence on some events. 
A- It is just rephrase of 1st. Pl correct it.

nuevamateo20 · Answer

A is correct. Please see an expert explanation from Manhattan Prep below. Thanks.

"The discussion so far seems to suggest that as stated in the stimulus neither doctrine in the stimulus is mistaken. But I would suggest that the argument does a pretty good job of showing that the second doctrine is mistaken, but simply fails to establish that the first doctrine is mistaken.

The first doctrine says that an explanation must appeal to economic factors. It does not say that it must appeal to solely economic factors, and so the evidence that there are situations that were due both to economic forces and to the nature of early childhood would not establish the first doctrine to be mistaken. Assuming answer choice (A) though is an assumption of the first doctrine being mistaken.

I do see the second doctrine as having been established to be mistaken. If it attempts to account psychologically for all historical events, the explanation is a psychological one. Which, in light of the evidence would be mistaken since it would have failed to account for the economic forces.

So, when hunting for the assumption, I was already looking for the gap on the way to establishing that the first doctrine was mistaken.

Incorrect Answers

(B) need not be assumed, since the second doctrine could appeal to other psychological factors and still be mistaken. This answer rules out the possibility that the second doctrine appeals to economic factors, but also rules out more than what is needed to establish the conclusion and focuses on the doctrine that had already been established to be mistaken and not the gap in the reasoning.
(C) is irrelevant. No relative comparison as to the impact of these various factors need be assumed.
(D) need not be assumed. We know that no doctrine can appeal to solely economic or psychological factors and still explain all historical phenomena, but why should there be both explanations already made for any given historical event?
(E) places both factors in the explanation to any event, when we need to assume instead that no explanation that appeals solely to economic or to psychological factors will explain all historical phenomena. So, there must be at least one event that requires both economic and psychological explanations, but not that any event requires both."
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t2249.html

sid993 · Answer

No. The author says that the 2 doctrines are mistaken which means both 1st and 2nd are wrong. 
The explanation goes against the premise.
Two doctrines have greatly influential in this century
---->The first holds that the explanation of ANY historical event must appeal to economic factors. 
The event can be a combination of economic+psychological or economic+something else.
---->The second attempts to account psychological for all historical events especially in terms of early childhood experience. 
Both doctrines, however, are mistaken

dhruv2989 · Answer

This question is grammatically incorrect. No official question will ever be grammatically incorrect.

nuevamateo20 · Answer

dhruv2989  - Apology, I've fixed the typos in the original question. I typed too quickly.

ironsid  - wanted to point your attention to a couple of things: 
The conclusion of the argument is that both doctrines are mistaken. The argument depends on there being events that can be explained only by  reference  to both econ and psychological factors. But the author’s argument does not depend on both factors being needed to EXPLAIN every historical event. 
If you have further confusion, I suggest you tag an expert here or go on to LSAT forums such as PowerScore or Manhattan Prep. This question is taken from SuperPrep Test B Section 1 Question No. 21.

ricardorr04 · Answer

I chose A.

using negation/stress test, you can see how A is necessary for argument to hold.

if "The first doctrine DOES NOT preclude any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events." then the conclusion is rendered invalid because the conclusion says both doctrines are wrong due to the fact that some historical events are based both on economic and psychological factors.

please let me know if that makes sense. thank u

CEdward · Answer

Am I missing something? The end of the passage was confusing.

Both doctrines, however, are mistaken . <--- This is clearly the stance of the author

Certainly, there have been events that were due both to economic forces and to the nature of the early childhood experiences of the major participants in the event. <-- Here we have an apparent contradiction.

???

IN2MBB2PE · Answer

GMATNinja  I spent over 2 hours trying to understand this question, I could not wrap my head around this, I do not think I even understood the premises properly, what's the purpose of the third premise after conclusion? Does it suggest that they are not mutually exclusive? Thanks in advance, this needs to be decoded.

TheGraceful · Answer

GMATNinja ,
your help is greatly appreciated sir.
I got it wrong twice.

RohitSaluja · Answer

Hi  TheGraceful  and  IN2MBB2PE . I am no  GMATNinja  but I can provide my two cents on the questions

Analysis: The author says that both the doctrines are mistaken because  there have been events  that were due both to economic forces and to the nature of the early childhood experiences of the major participants in the event.

Now notice the highlighted phrase above in the argument, it signifies that there are some events that require both the doctrines. So the author is assuming that the doctrines are non-overlapping or to put in a better way are mutually exclusive. Now with this in mind let's look at the option choices

A) The first doctrine precludes any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events. - This aligns with our pre-thinking, what if the first doctrine includes non-economic factors as well such as childhood experience, thus negating option A cast some doubt on the conclusion. Let's keep this option on hold

B) The second doctrine places importance only on childhood experiences. -   This one is hard to explain but I will try, the logical gap to fill in is the author believes that each doctrine is exclusive and cant overlap with the other. Option A just does that, One more downvote for this option is the usage of strong language "only". Generally, assumptions are not worded strongly, so I will not choose such an option choice as the answer.

C) Historical events are influenced as much or as little by economic factors as by psychological factors.   his option talks about "any given historical event" but based on our analysis above we know that it is not applicable to all events but to certain, so the author does not need to assume this

D) One is likely to find that both economic and psychological explanations have been proposed for any given historical event.   Same as C

E) Appeals to both economics and psychological factors are needed to understand any historical event properly.   Same as C

TheGraceful · Answer

Thanks Rohit.
Although NOT completely satisfactory explanation, helped to understand the possibility about 'overlap' .

SofiaDahiya · Answer

Hi,

I too spent a lot of time on this question and kind of understood it now. Just wanted to mention my understanding here, hope it helps.

Argument understanding : First doctrine mentions that "economic factors can explain  any  historical event" means economic factors can explain all the historical events.
Second doctrine mentions that "psychology can explain all historical events"
Author concludes that  " both are wrong" because for certain events both "economic" and "psychological" factors have been responsible .

Prethinking : why will author say that both doctrines are wrong because "in his opinion both the factors have been responsible", because  he thinks both doctrines don't consider any other factor than what is stated by them independently  and that's what makes them both wrong.
if these doctrines included any other factor, they would be right. 
Now, because both factors have been responsible in author's opinion but doctrines don't include each other (or any other factor), these doctrines are wrong.
So we need an answer choice which states that " both these doctrines don't include any other factor that is not mentioned by them ".

Now with this understanding, let's move to all the answer choices.

A) The first doctrine precludes any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events. - as per this choice, author assumes that  first doctrine doesn't include noneconomic factors  (this could be psychological factor as well), hence it fits with the conclusion. Author is assuming that the doctrine doesn't include any other factor. If it included any other factor, it would be right in his opinion.
B) The second doctrine places  importance  only on childhood experiences. - if second doctrine gives importance to childhood experiences,  it may include other factors as well . Hence there is a scope that "second doctrine includes any other factor as well". Hence it doesn't fit into the scope of the argument.
C) Historical events are influenced as much or as little by economic factors as by psychological factors. - in last sentence of the argument, author already mentions that "both factors are responsible". So this choice doesn't explain why doctrines are wrong.
D) One is likely to find that both economic and psychological explanations have been proposed for any given historical event. - even if both explanations have been proposed, they  don't explain why "mentioned doctrines" are wrong  in author's opinion.
E) Appeals to both economics and psychological factors are needed to understand any historical event properly. - what is needed to understand historical event is  not concern of the argument.

Basshead · Answer

We have two doctrines:

(1) The first holds that the explanation of any historical event  must  appeal to economic factors.

(2) The second attempts to account psychologically for all historical events especially in terms of early childhood experience.

The argument concludes that the doctrines are mistaken. Why? The doctrines don't account for the possibility of events due to  (1) economic factors  AND  (2) childhood experiences .

We're assuming here that one doctrine doesn't include factors that would satisfy the other doctrine.

The first doctrine  must  appeal to economic factors. However, why can't this doctrine account for psychology?

A closes that gap. The first doctrine  precludes  any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events.

unraveled · Answer

Pity that I chose E.

I was torn apart between A and E. One factor of inclining towards E was that author already said that both doctrines are wrong, eventually signifying that something is not understandable when each of them form a theory. It may be true but A is better within the realms of the passage.
Another reason of not picking(not able to understand) A. It specifies only one thing which makes not much sense when theories take shape which happen over a period of time. But it looks like that it can be an inference at best.

Answer A.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Two doctrines have greatly influential in this century. The first

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Two doctrines have greatly influential in this century. The first

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards