Passage Summary: If a therapist keeps a violent criminal's secrets, they might be letting a dangerous person stay on the streets. If they tell the authorities, they break the rules of therapy. Therefore, the author thinks you can't be a good therapist and a good citizen at the same time.

Conclusion: Therapists treating violent criminals are unable to simultaneously uphold client confidentiality and maintain a genuine concern for the safety of potential future victims.

Reasoning: Reporting a client's past crimes destroys the therapeutic trust, while staying silent allows a dangerous individual to remain free and potentially commit more violence.

Analysis: This argument presents a classic false dilemma, suggesting that these two goals are mutually exclusive with no middle ground. To weaken this, we need to find a way that a therapist could potentially satisfy both requirements. Perhaps the act of therapy itself reduces the likelihood of future crimes, thereby protecting victims without needing to report past ones. Look for an answer choice that introduces a third option or suggests that the two goals aren't as incompatible as the author claims.