QUESTION TEXT: Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: We should increase funding for intervention research, a method that is potentially more cost-effective than conventional treatment.
REASONING: Intervention has promise.
ANALYSIS: This sounds like a pretty good argument. But, the conclusion mentions that intervention research is potentially cheaper.
The evidence doesn’t say anything about cost. All we know is that intervention research can reduce risk factors that may contribute to mental disorders.
The argument assumes that there is some chance that prevention is cheaper than treatment.
- The stimulus is talking about all mental health disorders. This answer choice only talks about minor disorders.
- Even if this weren’t true it’s possible the research could be coordinated in some other way.
- CORRECT. The conclusion is that intervention therapy is a potential treatment that would be more cost effective. So the argument has to assume that intervention is cheaper than conventional treatment – this wasn’t mentioned in the evidence.
- The argument wants an increase in intervention research. It doesn’t matter what the current level is – you can always increase something above it’s current level.
- The argument would actually be stronger if mental diseases could be prevented and cured completely.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions