WeakenDiff: Easy

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Since short-term and long-term therapy both fix anxiety in the same amount of time, there is no reason to pay for the more expensive long-term version.

Conclusion: Expensive long-term relaxation training is generally unnecessary for most people.

Reasoning: Studies indicate that both short-term and long-term training programs reduce anxiety to normal levels within the same initial short-term timeframe.

Analysis: The argument assumes that because the immediate results are identical, the long-term value must also be the same. To weaken this, we should look for a benefit unique to the long-term training that justifies the extra cost. For example, if the short-term training's effects disappear after a month while the long-term training provides a permanent cure, the conclusion would fall apart. I'd bet on an answer choice that highlights the difference in the 'durability' of the results. It's the classic 'quick fix versus lasting solution' debate.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

9.

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

Correct Answer
C
If long-term training yields significantly fewer recurrences of anxiety, then the argument’s focus on reaching normal levels within the short-term window is incomplete. This shows a meaningful long-term benefit that can justify the longer, more expensive option, weakening the claim that it’s unwarranted for most people.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep