Q13 - "Addiction" has been defined

[willaminic]

Hi,

i chose A for this question. if i negate it, cancer patients abuse Morphine, which i think it would distort the argument. right?

I can understand C is right, but it uses " addicted" which bugs me while the stimuls states "dependence". Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

If think if you had a clearer picture of the argument core, you'd see how answer choice (A) would be irrelevant.

Let's look at the argument...

The conclusion is that the definition of "addiction" is incorrect. Well, what is the definition of "addiction?" The stimulus states that addiction is both dependence and abuse. We learn in the stimulus that cancer patients are dependent but not abusive of morphine. But in order for cancer patients to be relevant to the definition of addiction, it needs to be the case that they're addicted to morphine - answer choice (C).

Answer choice (A) is not an assumption of the argument, because it's an explicitly stated premise. So yes, it's needed for the conclusion to follow, but it's not assumed, it's stated!

You can also see things more formally using conditional logic

The definition of addiction is both dependence and abuse.

AD --> D + AB

To undermine this definition the argument would need to establish that some who are addicted either are not dependent or not abusive.

AD some ~D or ~AB

The argument establishes ~D, that's one of two tasks. The other is to establish AD. So to refute the definition of addiction, the cancer patients must be addicted to morphine.

(A) is not assumed but rather stated.
(B) is not assumed but rather stated.
(C) would need to be true in order for the cancer patients mentioned to be relevant to the definition of addiction.
(D) is irrelevant. First, we don't need to know anything about cancer patients who abuse a drug, we need to know about those who do not abuse a drug. Second, the gap between cancer patients and addiction is not bridged.
(E) contradicts an explicitly stated premise.

Clear things up? Let me know otherwise...

[u2manish]

he definition of addiction is both dependence and abuse.
AD --> D + AB
To undermine this definition the argument would need to establish that some who are addicted either are not dependent or not abusive.
AD some ~D or ~AB


Hello Matthew,

I am sorry i didnt follow. Could you please kindly elaborate a bit more on this question?


Also, can we not say that the definition is incorrect if we eliminate the possibility of equating dependence with abuse(not that it is mentioned in the answer choices).

Best,
M

[timmydoeslsat]

This is an interesting necessary assumption question.

It is asking us what is a required assumption of stating the example with cancer patients.

Our argument goes like this:

-Addiction has been defined as dependence and abuse.
-Dependence and abuse do not always occur together.

(At this point...I am thinking...well, that is expected. That does not disprove that addiction is both of those things occurring together!)

It is like me stating that a Hall of Fame player has been defined as being a winner and being a champion.

However, being a winner and being a champion do not always occur together.

For example, Dan Marino was a winner and not a champion!

Therefore, the definition of a Hall of Fame player is incorrect.

I have attempted to prove that the definition of a Hall of Fame player is incorrect by showing that the 2 necessary conditions of being a HOF player are not being met, which does destroy that definition.

However, I am assuming that Dan Marino is a Hall of Fame player! My attempt at discrediting that definition goes nowhere without that assumption.


In this particular argument, the example that was brought in with the cancer patients becoming dependent and not abusing, thereby denying one of the necessary conditions.

However, we NEED to assume that those cancer patients in the example are addicted to the morphine. That assumption is necessary to conclude that the definition of addiction is wrong.

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a crazy question because the assumption seems so inherently stated as you are ready until you get to the answer choices and then you think, but didn't they already state (C)?!

Nope.

Question though, wouldn't this also work as a flaw question that states something like the following, "the argument treats the failure of a phenomenon to establish addiction as the phenomenon invalidating the notion that addiction can exist in its perceived form." I know that is an incredibly weird statement but I swear this would work better as a flaw question.

Simply denying one of two necessaries only denies that the sufficient has been satisfied, not that the sufficient condition is somehow "invalid." Do you see what I mean? I hope I am clear. If I say...

(addiction) → ((dependence) & (abuse))

then I say...

~((dependence) & (abuse))

that means...

~addiction.

I get this via a simple contrapositive. However, just because ~(addiction) does NOT mean that the notion of (addiction) is inherently flawed.

[pewals13]

Task:

Find what absolutely needs to be true in order for the example of cancer patients provided in the stimulus to be relevant to reaching the conclusion

Core:

Dependence can occur without abuse (cancer example)
+
Abuse can occur without dependence
=>
Defining addiction as involving both dependence and abuse on psychoactive substances is incorrect

Gap:

In order for the example involving cancer patients who are dependent on morphine for pain but do not abuse it to be relevant to the argument, these patients must be addicted to morphine. If they are not addicted to morphine, their dependence is not an example in contradiction with the traditional definition of addiction that the argument is attempting to discredit.

Answer Choices:

(A) Out of Scope (too strong): Does it have to be true that cancer patients never abuse morphine for the example to be relevant? No. Consider the negation- there could be other cancer patients who are not in pain but have access to morphine and abuse it. This doesn't diminish the capacity of the example provided in the stimulus to serve as relevant counter-evidence to the traditional definition of "addiction."

(B) Premise Booster: The stimulus already states that this occurs

(C) CORRECT: Consider the negation: if the cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are NOT addicted to it, what "value-added" does the example provide to the argument? None. It no longer discredits the traditional definition of addiction that the argument as a whole attacks.

(D) Out of Scope (relevance): This answer choice states that cancer patients who abuse a drug are also dependent on it. If anything, this would weaken the argument by suggesting that abuse and dependence go together.

(E) Out of Scope (opposite): This would undercut the relevance of the example in the stimulus because it would mean that those patients who are dependent on morphine also abuse it.

[abdelmalak17]

I was curious about a trend I noticed on these "diagramming" necessary assumption questions. I noticed in the answer choices there is always one that is different from the others in the sense of relating to the conclusion. Only one answer choice relate to the definition of addiction or the topic in general, "addiction".

Would it be unadvisable to just search the answer choices and see which one is related to the conclusion and choose that as an answer choice to save time?

[tommywallach]

Highly unadvisable. That's not generally true at all.

-t

[esthertan0310]

Hello

This one I don't get.

If cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are addicted to it (option C), doesn't it show that the definition of addiction is correct? Because it shows that dependence and abuse go hand in hand...