LSAT Explanation PT 43, S2, Q6: Therapists who treat violent criminals cannot

LSAT Question Stem

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

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

We have a Weaken question here, which means we need to find an answer choice that undermines the argument's conclusion or the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. The argument in the passage states that therapists who treat violent criminals cannot both respect their clients' right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Reporting a client's unreported crimes violates the client's trust.

Premise 2: Remaining silent leaves the dangerous client out of prison, free to commit more crimes.

Conclusion: Therapists cannot both respect their clients' right to confidentiality and be sincerely concerned for the welfare of victims of future violent crimes.

To help understand this, let's use a simple example. Imagine a therapist who has a client who is a bank robber. The client tells the therapist about a robbery he committed but was never caught for. The therapist faces a dilemma: should they report the crime and betray the client's trust or remain silent and risk the client committing more robberies?

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there a way for a therapist to maintain a client's confidentiality while also protecting potential victims of future crimes?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices:

a) Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.

- This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument because it doesn't address the dilemma faced by therapists, whether they were assigned the task or not.

b) Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.

- This answer choice also doesn't address the dilemma faced by therapists and doesn't provide a way for therapists to protect the public while maintaining their clients' right to confidentiality.

c) Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.

- This answer choice doesn't weaken the argument because it doesn't provide a way for therapists to fulfill their obligations to both the criminal and the public.

d) The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.

- This answer choice introduces the idea of compensation, which is irrelevant to the argument and doesn't weaken the conclusion.

e) A therapist who has gained a violent criminal's trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.

- This is the correct answer choice. It provides a way for therapists to protect potential victims of future crimes without violating the client's confidentiality, thus weakening the argument's conclusion.

In conclusion, the correct answer choice to weaken the argument is (e), as it provides a way for therapists to maintain their clients' confidentiality while also protecting potential victims of future crimes.