63 LR Two Question 11
- « 63 LR Two Question 10
- 2102 of 3815
- 63 LR Two Question 12 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
Hey Dave, I thought this one was a bait and switch because of the change from "medical information" to "diagnose." So, I went with answer choice A. Was that wrong because the conclusion is talking about doing harm, and therefore we need an assumption about doing harm?
I actually went with choice A originally, because one of the flaws i spotted was a shift from, people who browse the web -> to people who rely on the web to solve their problems. I then chose A as correct because it covered that shift.
However, a negation of A says, "People who browse the web for medical info do not do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical condition". So while that answer addresses the shift, it doesn't destroy the argument. Instead it is really kind of irrelevant to the conclusion that people are doing more harm than good.
Then on review when I negated B, it says "People who attempt to diagnose their conditions are NOT likely to do more harm than good even if they don't rely exclusively on scientific info." Wow, that 100% completely steamrolls the conclusion! That would seem to say that even if people were listening to quackery only, they aren't going to do more harm than good! B it is!
Hi Dave, I thought the AC in B sounded too strong to be NA as I was expecting small language. On the other LSAT site I use other people thought the same thing (that B sounded too strong) and the tutor said that the reason is that it is both a necessary assumption and sufficient assumption. I don't see how it is both? Also, can you help me see what in the stimulus should have clued me in on the fact that the wording in B is Not too strong? I know language cues are just tools and we have to pay attention to the stimulus but I sometimes have trouble with these types of NA questions where the language appears too strong.
This is a necessary assumption question, and you are absolutely correct to be wary of the load-bearing language in (B). But we can tell that (B) is in fact necessary by using the negate test: if (B) isn't true—that is, if people are not more likely to do themselves harm by using information that isn't scientifically valid—then the whole argument is bunk. That's just another way of saying the argument relies on knowing that invalid advice really does lead to likely harm.
It might help that there's a fairly straightforward paraphrase of (B) that probably looks a lot more appealing (and is a pretty good lesson in thinking in structure).
The argument is that Invalid medical advice on the internet is attractive. Thus, people who rely on the internet are likely to do themselves harm. For that argument to work requires the assumption that People who use invalid medical advice are likely to do themselves harm. Clear, right? And that assumption's conditional: Invalid advice → harm
Well, (B) is saying pretty much exactly that: If people rely on invalid advice, then they're likely to do themselves harm.
The fact that the argument makes no qualification about the people involved is a tip; if an argument's central claim is that anybody who does thing X will experience thing Y, that suggests that the argument has likely assumed something big in order to reach that claim. Make sense?