LSAT 117 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Psychologist: Some psychologists mistakenly argue …

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Electrical discharges can’t completely explain the phenomenon of dreaming.

REASONING:

• Some psychologists argue: Dreams come from electrical discharges, so they should be understood purely physiologically and reveal nothing about the dreamers.
• But nope, dream content varies enormously.

ANALYSIS: The statement that dream content varies enormously is a premise used to attack the anti-Freudian psychologists’ position.

The anti-Freudians argue: Dreams are purely physiological and reveal nothing about the dreamer.

The psychologist responds: But dream content varies enormously, so a purely physiological explanation cannot be complete.

So the variation in dream content is being used as evidence against the anti-Freudians’ claim that dreams can be fully understood in purely physiological terms.

___________

1. The claim about varying dream content is used against the anti-Freudian position, not in support of it.
2. You could infer that dreams might reveal something about the dreamer, but that is not the explicitly stated conclusion. The explicit conclusion is only that electrical discharges can’t completely explain dreaming.
3. The argument says nothing about whether Freud’s theory is complete or incomplete. It only criticizes the anti-Freudian explanation.
4. This is a trap. The argument isn’t saying: “Dreaming is difficult to explain.” It’s saying: “This particular explanation is incomplete.” Those are different claims. An explanation can be incomplete without proving that the phenomenon itself is difficult to explain.
5. CORRECT. Some psychologists use the claim that dreams are purely physiological to argue against Freud’s view that dreams can reveal something about the dreamer. The psychologist uses the fact that dream content varies to undermine that anti-Freudian claim.