#11 - People who browse the web for medical information

[serenapao]

Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for mapping it out for me. I think that makes sense. I'm so sorry for the multiple follow-up questions but I want to make sure I fully understand this.

Based on your explanation,
If this were the stimulus: Blue marine mammals blend in with the blue water. Therefore, blue marine mammals are more likely to survive until adulthood.
This could be the correct answer for NA: Animals that match the color of their surroundings are able to avoid predators through camouflage, increasing their chance of survival.

I just wanted to check that even though it doesn't specify that the animals in the answer choice are marine mammals, the answer would be fine for NA because it bridges the gap and marine mammals are already present in both the premise and conclusion. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your explanation.

Thanks so much for your patience!
Serena

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Serena,

So, this shows how tough it is to write LSAT questions If this was a full questions, we'd need to make some changes to have this work. First, I would lower the force of this to make it "some animals..." otherwise you are asking a blue marine mammals discussion to suddenly require something to be true of all animals, do you see how that would go too far? Second, I also don't love suddenly bringing in "predators" because the argument didn't give us the exact cause of why the blue color seems to help--perhaps it has something to do with sunlight frequency being less deadly for them, and has nothing to do with predators. Thus, I'd say the addition of predators is not necessary.

You're on the right track but the LSAT requires things to be very specific in certain cases, and Necessary Assumptions are definitely one of those areas where you have to watch about bringing in extra info.

Thanks!

[serenapao]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your explanation! I see why the addition of predators was unnecessary. I'm a little confused about the other part. I see why we wouldn't ask a blue marine discussion to require something to be true of all animals but I don't understand why we'd ask a web diagnosis discussion to require something to be true of all people who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.

I think I understand your explanation about how the web concept is common to both the premise and conclusion so it's not a missing piece. In the blue mammal analogy, the premise and conclusion both have blue marine mammals in common but the NA answer still requires a qualifier so it isn't overly broad. So in the actual LSAT question, why isn't the correct answer choice ("People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information") qualified with "some"?

Thanks again!

[Dave Killoran]

I'm going to turn this around on you: take a close look at the LSAT question here and the connected argument pieces then compare it to the example you made. There's a reason the LSAT question gets away with the language they use vs why your example cannot

Let me know what you think after analyzing the two and I'll let you know if you are following the right path. Thanks!

[serenapao]

Hi Dave!

I'm not exactly sure. Is it because it's reasonable to assume that people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are representative of all people who attempt to self-diagnose in this particular area? Because there's no reason to assume that the rule (quackery doing harm) would apply differently to the entire superset compared to the subset, regardless of whether someone is encountering quackery online or elsewhere, it still would cause harm if they can't distinguish it from science-backed info. On the other hand, in my example, there's no reason to assume that an adaptive characteristic for blue mammals would also help increase the survival of other animals. Not sure if that's the reason though, would love your explanation.

Thanks so much,
Serena

[Dave Killoran]

In brief, the LSAT problem contains a lot more information and is still working in the realm of people trying to diagnose their medical conditions, and then connects that back to prior info. (B) keeps some of that language from the stimulus.

Your example doesn't, it drops all the context from marine mammals and scales up to all animals. There are different ways to fix that, including one I tossed out about"some animals," but the info in the "stimulus" is so thin that you have very little latitude with the language used. The makers of the LSAT are very careful to match ideas as they move through premise/conclusion relationships and in Assumption questions of either type, it's often that "hole" or missing link that proves to be the correct answer. That's what happens in (B).

Note also that what I said was my expectation was the answer wouldn't contain certain information, using an almost Justify Formula approach to what is not a Justify/SA question. But NA/Assumption questions often work the same way so I can use that as a quick tool at times to cut through to find what is most likely. It takes time to feel comfortable with that, but eventually you'll see these problems and have a logic radar of sorts that identifies the problem very quickly. This question is somewhat formulaic and so it's a great place to gain time. Take time to study the pieces in this argument since what they do here is a mirror for what you see in a number of NA/Assumption questions.

Thanks!

[serenapao]

Hi Dave!

I see, that makes sense. I really appreciate your multiple explanations and your patience. I will be sure to continue thinking about these concepts as I continue going through NA/Assumption questions.

Thanks again!
Serena