Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. But no expert is c...
brandonpaytonFebruary 1, 2018
I'm confused
How on earth can you conclude something about Charles if he isn't even in the passage? This makes no sense to me and the video doesn't do a good job explaining why each answer choice is wrong.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hey there, thanks for your post. This classic LSAT question has frustrated generations of students; you are not alone. The key here is that the stimulus gives you a rule of general applicability: "only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally," and furthermore that "no expert is certain of being able to solve someone else's problem."
Let's diagram the stimulus; it might help. P: Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. U - > E [If someone understands, she must be an expert] cp: not E - > not U [If someone is not an expert, she cannot understand]
P: But no expert is certain of being able to solve someone else's problem. E - > not C [If expert, not certain] cp: C - > not E [If certain, then not an expert]
Fact: Patrick wants to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.
The question stem asks you what must be true in light of the information provided in the stimulus.
Answer choice (E) is correct: If Charles is certain, then Charles does not understand.
We can deduce this must be true by adding together the two contrapositives of the given premises: C - > not E - > not U [If certain, then not an expert; if not an expert, then cannot understand]
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
ndn8June 21, 2018
Thank you for your previous post. Why is option D not a valid answer choice? Is that not saying
not E - > not U ?
ChristopherJune 22, 2018
There is nothing in the question that says when an expert should or should not try to help, which is what (D) is alluding to. Understanding is to the same thing as helping. Does that make sense?
niki-dowlatshahiSeptember 26, 2018
good explanation on this question; however, i understood why choices A thru D were wrong, but I don't really understand completely why E is right. I still chose E, without understanding completely why its right but I understand why the others are wrong. Is this not a valid way to answer questions?
AnitaSeptember 27, 2018
@niki-dowlatshahi Let’s break down (E) then.
We know that if Charles is certain of being able to solve Patrick’s behavioral problem, then he is not an expert, because no expert is certain of being able to solve someone’s problem.
If Charles is not a psychology expert, then he cannot know why Patrick is behaving irrationally, because only an expert is some branch of psychology could know that.
