- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Feb 09, 2024
- Tue Apr 23, 2024 3:19 pm
#106118
I'm not sure your reasoning in the first sentence is correct. If you are not in danger of developing heart disease, and you take an aspirin, you're not really in "better health." Therefore, aspirin wouldn't make your health better in ALL cases.
Think of it like anti-allergy medications. Benadryl (for example) helps prevent or reduce the severity of allergic reactions. Allergies are very common, but still, it's not necessarily the case that "most people" are in danger of developing allergies. So it would be a mistake to conclude that most people in a certain country would be healthier if they took a Benadryl every day; for a lot of them, it wouldn't do anything, or even have adverse side effects.
When we look at the stimulus this way, we can see the flaw, and understand why answer choice (B) is correct.
Does that make sense?
lemonade42 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:45 pm Hello,Hello lemonade42,
I'm kind of confused about the structure of the argument. Can you check my understanding?
I think the conclusion itself is not flawed (If I were to use only sentence 1 to get to the conclusion). It's true that most people in such nations would be in better health if they take an aspirin because even if you are perfectly healthy and you take aspirin to prevent heart disease, that would already make you at "better health" because now you are less susceptible of getting heart disease. So in all cases, taking aspirin would make you at better health, regardless of if most people are at risk or not for heart disease. However,
Q1) the previous response says that "in order for daily aspirin to help "most people", most people have to be at risk"?
So, there is no flaw in reasoning from using sentence 1 to make the conclusion. But if we were to use sentence 2 to make the conclusion, that reasoning would be flawed and conclusion would be flawed (which is shown by B). So does that mean for this question, we would have to realize the author made his/her reasoning flaw involving sentence 2 and the conclusion?
I originally chose (C) because I was thinking: ok, aspirin prevented or reduced severity of heart disease, but if the people still had other diseases then they wouldn't be at "better health". But even if this happens, so what? It doesn't impact the conclusion of how if aspirin was taken, most people would be at better health. It doesn't impact how aspirin is able to make people at better health. Therefore, overlooking this possibility is not a flaw.
I'm not sure your reasoning in the first sentence is correct. If you are not in danger of developing heart disease, and you take an aspirin, you're not really in "better health." Therefore, aspirin wouldn't make your health better in ALL cases.
Think of it like anti-allergy medications. Benadryl (for example) helps prevent or reduce the severity of allergic reactions. Allergies are very common, but still, it's not necessarily the case that "most people" are in danger of developing allergies. So it would be a mistake to conclude that most people in a certain country would be healthier if they took a Benadryl every day; for a lot of them, it wouldn't do anything, or even have adverse side effects.
When we look at the stimulus this way, we can see the flaw, and understand why answer choice (B) is correct.
Does that make sense?