Long–term and short–term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problemat...

shafieiava on December 19, 2019

Answer choice B

Can someone explain why answer choice B is incorrect? Why would the expense factor not weaken the argument? Is the detail about the expenses irrelevant to this question?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

BenMingov on December 19, 2019

Hi Shafieiava, thanks for the question.

This stimulus can be simplified as follows:

Short-term and long-term relaxation training are two common methods to treat people with high levels of anxiety. However, studies show that both methods generally yield the desired results within the time frame of short-term relaxation. Therefore, for most people the usually more expensive long-term relaxation training is unnecessary.

They are basically saying why pay more for the same result.

Answer choice B says that a short-term session with a more experienced trainer can be more expensive than a long-term session with a less experienced trainer. How does that weaken the idea that for most people, there is no reason to pay for more expensive long-term sessions if you get the same result as short-term, which is cheaper? It doesn't. There will always be high end services and luxury pricing for any service. And using common sense, more experienced for more money might be better than less experienced for less money.

So, expense is definitely relevant to this question. The entire argument fixates around the idea of why pay more for the same result. However, the way that the idea of expense is presented in answer choice B is not going to weaken the argument.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

shafieiava on December 19, 2019

Thank you for you reply. It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the answer choices explaining why the others are right/wrong? For example, the correct answer choice doesn't include expense at all.

BenMingov on December 20, 2019

Hi Shafieiava, let's break them down!

A) Just because it's possible to have a reduction in anxiety symptoms without treatment, this doesn't hurt the idea that it might still be wasteful to spend money on long-term when you get the same benefit from short-term but for cheaper.

B) As discussed above. What individual practitioners charge does not tell us anything about whether it is typically unwarranted to spend more on long-term vs short-term.

C) If people who receive long-term training are more likely to permanently resolve their anxiety issues, then this directly attacks the argument that it is usually unwarranted to spend more on long-term. Because, as we see, this can very well be a one time fix if we spend more on long-term once vs paying less but many times using short-term.

D) This doesn't distinguish the two types of training in any way. And it doesn't show why the conclusion would be fine or why it would be weakened. Someone can see improvement just by thinking short term will help and the same can be said about long-term.

E) Perhaps even more reason to opt for short-term training? You get the same results, for cheaper, and with more options to combat anxiety. If anything, this strengthens the reasoning, not weaken it.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.