Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of t

Question

Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Yet studies show that on average, regardless of which form of treatment one receives, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.
(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.
(C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.
(D) The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual’s anxiety.
(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.

Source: LSAT

Suzie · Answer

By weakening the argument, we want to prove that the long-term training is warranted. Even though symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period, Only C provides us a reason to still go for long-term training.

zac123 · Answer

Can some one explain Why is B incorrect?

AlexGmat2017 · Answer

Maybe, (C) - 1st best, (B) - second best, as it depends on the skills of those who conduct training while (C) only relies on the intrinsic effectiveness of trainings without reference to the conductors.

monk123 · Answer

Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Yet studies show that on average, regardless of which form of treatment one receives, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.
 
Reasoning:
Conclusion- for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.
To weaken the answer we need to find something which says expensive long term training is justified and it is good.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) A  decrease in symptoms  of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional. -  OUT OF SCOPE 
(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a  more experienced practitioner  can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a  less experienced practitioner.  -  NO SUCH COMPARISON   
(C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety. -   CORRECT  
(D) The fact that an  individual thinks  that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual’s anxiety. -  OUT OF SCOPE 
(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a  wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques  than does long-term training. -  STRENGHTHEN

SiffyB · Answer

nightblade354   broall 
 VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo

Conclusion: Most people going in for long term training is Not justified.
We need to weaken it by showing why long term training is warranted.

On pre-thinking I came up with this: What if in the people going in for long term training, there is recurrence of anxiety. Their anxiety reduces to normal within the short term time period but crops back again if treatment is not continued.

The correct option (C) is opposite of this IMO. If the receipients of long term therapy are less likely to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety, this means that they don't need to go in for the long term therapy. They can be cured by the short term therapy itself.

Where am I going wrong. Please help

adkikani · Answer

VeritasKarishma   MentorTutoring

Can you elaborate (B) vs (C)?

As per q stem I need to weaken the conclusion, which is:
for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.

I usually pay attention to modifiers e.g. most and more expensive in conclusions.
Let me know if this approach is effective.

How does author come to above claim?
Let:
A: short term relaxation technique
B: long term relaxation technique

Studies show that irrespective of choosing A/B all subjects do recover from anxiety.
However, subjects who chose A recovered in shorter period (within the short-term-training time period)
So, one need not go for expensive B.

Since I need to weaken claim, I can do so by:
a. Suggesting some benefits of B
b. Suggesting some disadvantages of A which are missed by author

(B) counts in (b) by saying that A is more expensive that B (see how expensive is also mentioned in claim while discussing how B is more expensive than A)
So if A is more expensive or becomes as costly as B, we can well go for B itself. So , we can cast doubt that (B) is not effective for most people.

I honestly do not have a solid reason to discard (C) since it falls under (a) for two reasons to weaken my claim.

Similarly to negation technique used in assumption questions, if I am stuck in two options, can I use any strategy for the weakening a claim? E.g. here I find both (B) and (C) convincing.

NiftyNiffler · Answer

Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Yet studies show that on average, regardless of which form of treatment one receives, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.  -- Out-of-scope. We are here to evaluate long-term & short-term trainings. 
(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.  -- Money is not issue discussed here 
(C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.  -- CORRECT, long-term training provides benefits not brought on by short-term training 
(D) The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual’s anxiety.  -- This benefits both trainings, can't assess one over the other 
(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.  -- Strengthens the conclusion
 
So, answer should be  C

AndrewN · Answer

I appreciate the critical reasoning,  adkikani , but once again, I think your approach is overly complicated. Since you brought attention to the type of language used in conclusions in general, I would urge you to scrutinize the language of the responses as well. Choice (B), for instance, uses this unqualified  can be  in  can be more expensive . Well, if  some  short-term training is more expensive, then some other such training is not, and we have no basis for comparison between short-term and long-term training. This is a blind alley. Besides, the efficacy of either type of training seems to be the issue here, rather than the cost. The argument suggests that if both short- and long-term training yield similar results, then there is little reason for someone to pursue the more expensive training. What we need to do, then, is to find a way to show that long-term training provides some benefit that short-term training does not. Choice (C) fits the bill perfectly. If long-term training, compared to short-term training, makes it  much less likely —there are those qualifying words again—for its recipients  to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety , then long-term training and its more expensive price tag may be warranted after all. If that does not weaken the argument, then I am not sure what further proof we need. Choice (B) is a nonstarter, and (C) wins hands down.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew

KarishmaB · Answer

Long-term (say 1 year) and short-term (say 1 month) relaxation training - treatments for anxiety
For both, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. (So within 1 month, for both, symptoms of anxiety decrease to normal)

Conclusion: Long-term training is unwarranted.
(Then why to train for a year when symptoms come to normal in a month)

We need to weaken it. We need to say why long term treatment could be useful (why it is better than short term treatment). Why long term treatment is warranted.

(A) A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.

This implies that no treatment is needed. We need to find why long term treatment is useful. Not correct.

(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.

Irrelevant. The costs are not the point of discussion.

(C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.

Correct. This tells you why long term training is useful. The problem is less likely to recur for those who undergo long term training. So it has some benefits compared with short term training.

(D) The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual’s anxiety.

Again, like (A), it is implying to some degree that neither treatment is needed.

(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.

Doesn't tell us why long term training is useful.

Answer (C)

Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of t

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

Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of t

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