#20 - Medical reporter: Studies have consistently found that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

This medical reporter provides that aspirin can slightly thin the blood when taken once a day. This can help prevent heart disease, or reduce its severity. Based on the fact that heart disease is among the most common maladies in modern industrial nations, the medical reporter concludes that most people in those countries would be better off were they to begin taking an aspirin a day:

• Premise: Daily aspirin can thin the blood, which can prevent or reduce heart disease.
  
  Premise: Heart disease is one of the most common ills in industrial nations.
  
  Conclusion: Therefore most people in those nations would be better off if they took an aspirin a day.

The question that follows asks for the flaw in the author’s reasoning. The issue here is that, although heart disease is among the most common diseases in industrial nations, the possibility remains that heart disease appears in only a very small percentage of the population overall. If that is the case, then taking aspirin might not be advisable for the majority of the people who live in those nations (since the vast majority of the overall population might not be at any risk for heart disease).

Answer choice (A): The medical reporter states that an aspirin a day can help prevent heart disease or reduce its severity. The reasoning does not presume that any medication that can reduce the severity can also prevent some forms of the disease, so this choice does not describe the author’s flaw.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed, the author does not consider the possibility that, although heart disease is among the most common maladies in the nations discussed, it may only appear in a small portion of the population as a whole.

Answer choice (C): The medical reporter is focused on the ability of daily aspirin to reduce or prevent heart disease. This does not require considering that other diseases might not be impacted, so this is not a flaw of the author’s argument.

Answer choice (D): The doctor is focused on one type of medication and its effects on one type of malady. This argument need not consider the possibility that more effective measures exist, so this choice should be ruled out of contention in response to this Flaw question.

Answer choice (E): There is no need to address the possibility that studies of aspirin’s effects were only conducted in industrialized nations—that would not have any impact on the credibility of the studies, so this choice does not describe the flaw reflected in the stimulus.

[agroves]

Hello,

Can you please explain why B is a better choice than C? I was drawn to C because of the wording of "better health" in the conclusion, which seemed like a slightly new element.

Thanks!

Angela

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Angela,

Thanks for your question! "Better health" does seem like a bit of a leap from preventing or reducing the severity of heart disease. But remember that it's relative--"better" health isn't necessarily "good" health. If you take an aspirin a day, even if you have another disease, at least your heart would be in better shape. Having diabetes alone would put you in "better" health than having diabetes AND heart disease. So C isn't the best answer here since aspirin doesn't need to impact any other disease to put people in relatively better health.

B points out that most people might not be in danger of having heart disease at all and therefore most people wouldn't be in better health if they took an aspirin a day. Aspirin can't help out your heart disease if you are not in any significant danger of developing heart disease. So if most people are not in danger of heart disease, taking an aspirin a day would essentially have no effect on their health.

Hope that helps!

Kelsey

[akanshalsat]

Hello! I'm a little confused as to how a disease can be the most common (which implies that it happens commonly to people) is not the same as many people getting it? like how is B right? if a disease is most common, then how can only 2% of the population have it?

[Robert Carroll]

akansha,

The stimulus is trading on two different meanings of "most" here.

Note the difference between the following two statements:

"The most common cause of death is heart disease."

"Most people die of heart disease."

The first statement means heart disease is more common than other causes, but that doesn't entail that more than 50% of people die from it - it could be that 5% of people die of heart disease, 4% from cancer, 4% from car accident, etc.

The second statement DOES mean that more than 50% of people die of heart disease.

For the recommendation to apply to "most people", the second interpretation would have to be used. But the statement made in the premise just says heart disease is "one of the most common" types of ill health. So...that premise is using a meaning of "most" similar to the meaning of the FIRST statement, whereas the conclusion depends on "most" having a similar meaning to that in the SECOND statement.

Further, a thing can be "most common" or "one of the most common" without being particularly common. Imagine there are hundreds of causes of death. The "most common" one of those could still only affect a relatively small number of people - maybe 1% for the most common cause, 0.9% for the next one, until we get a bunch of different causes, all adding up to 100%. So something can be "most common" without being particularly common from an absolute perspective.

Robert Carroll

[MeriB]

Hey there!

I'm with Angela, though I still don't get why C is wrong after reading your response...

You say yourself in the initial explanation here that the conclusion of the author's argument is: Conclusion: Therefore most people in those nations would be better off if they took an aspirin a day.

But then, you dismiss C with this reasoning: Answer choice (C): The medical reporter is focused on the ability of daily aspirin to reduce or prevent heart disease. This does not require considering that other diseases might not be impacted, so this is not a flaw of the author’s argument.

I'd argue that, per the author's conclusion, he/she was focused on people's health being "better off" overall and that C, proposing a situation where taken Aspirin could potentially make one's health worse off, is a valid counterargument that highlights the author's reasoning flaw.

What am I missing?
Thanks,
Meri

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be adding information to answer C that isn't present, MeriB. Nothing about that answer suggests that taking aspirin would make any other disease worse. It only says that it will have little or no effect on other diseases. Let's say that aspirin reduces heart disease, one of the most common ailments, but has no impact on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, or Parkinson's disease. Wouldn't some people still be in better health because they would be less likely to suffer from heart disease? Does it matter that those people who might have gotten another disease still might get it?

This answer would be much better if it suggested that taking aspirin does make other diseases worse, like if an aspirin a day causes liver damage or ulcers. But answer C doesn't say anything about causing any harm that might outweigh its benefits. On the contrary, it says it has little to no effect, either good or bad! Overlooking that possibility isn't a flaw in this argument, because that possibility just isn't relevant to the argument.

[Bu4811]

Hi!

If I use process of elimination, I get why B is the answer since others are clearly not.

But I am having difficulty understanding why B is correct.

The stimulus wrote" aspirin a day will PREVENT, and reduce the severity of heart disease. "

So, it doesn't matter whether most people in that nation are in significant danger of developing that disease (Answer choice B) or not. If the general public take aspirin as a preventative treatment, the chance of them having heart disease would be reduced nevertheless.

The answer I guessed when reading the stimulus is that aspirin will have some sort of harmful side effect that outweigh the benefit if given to people without heart disease (or lower chance of developing a heart disease). This one seems far more logical to me.

[Robert Carroll]

Bu4811,

The issue is that the conclusion says "most people" would be in better health. As far as we know, the only benefit aspirin has is preventing or reducing the severity of heart disease. So, to the extent that a group of people is at risk of heart disease, daily aspirin would improve the health of those people. The issue is that we have no indication that most people in industrialized nations are at risk of heart disease. The conclusion seems to think that over 50% of people in such nations would be better if they took daily aspirin. We are never told in the premises that over 50% of people in such nations are at risk of heart disease. The closest the author came was saying "heart disease is one of the most common types of ill health" in those nations. But the most common type of ill health can still be a condition had by far fewer than 50% of people. So daily aspirin has a good chance of improving the health of a segment of the population, but the conclusion exaggerates that to "most" of the population.

It does in fact matter whether most people are at risk of heart disease, because in order for daily aspirin to help "most people", most people have to be at risk.

Your prephrase actually seems great to me! I think that just indicates that the stimulus has multiple flaws. No answer said the flaw you identified, but I don't see any problem with what you said. So to that extent, take this lesson - a stimulus can have more than one flaw, and if the flaw you prephrased is not in any answer, look further for other flaws.

Robert Carroll

[lemonade42]

Hello,
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.