#16 - Some people see no harm in promoting a folk remedy

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen, Principle. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I don't understand specifically why E is incorrect. The promoter of folk remedy persuaded the user to use the folk treatment which delayed or prevented a course of action (conventional treatment) that would of been more beneficial. Can you explain why this isn't as useful as answer B? Thank you.

V/r,

Micah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Micah,

There is a simple reason why (E) is incorrect: it strengthens a conclusion that is similar to, but different from, the one stated. The conclusion in the stimulus is that promoting folk remedies is actually harmful (beginning of second sentence); the remainder of the stimulus clarifies why. The conclusion does not specifically hold promoters of folk remedy responsible for anything. It's a factual conclusion, not a normative one. Claiming that something is harmful is different from holding someone responsible for something. The element of harm is brought up in answer choice (B), but not in (E).

Hope this helps!

Thanks,

[tamarisk]

This is that rare LSAT logical reasoning question I see on the preptests time to time that frustrates me the most. You are given five answers, each with a weakness that you can see visibly, and even when you narrow it down to say two or three of the answers, your left with those all at the same degree of error. Here in this one, I had answered A, but I realize the error was that the "promoter" was not aware of the harm as answer A says. But, the correct answer, like A, has one little thing that I cannot see in anyway passable as correct. The use of the word "interfere". When it comes to many of these questions in this type of section, it is understood that yes, sometimes things are implied by the stimulus. Examples would be assumption questions and what must be inferred questions. But the right answer on these questions, in my experience, have just about always implied something correct. So back to that little word "interfere". Please explain to me how this stimulus suggests in anyway that the "promoter" is "interfering"? The rest of the sentence, pure gold of an answer, yes I agree. Same goes for D, which in my opinion, yes, the word "responsible" does imply things that are not suggested or directly mentioned in the stimulus. But, this just puts all three answers at just the same level of correct and incorrect in my mind.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi tamarisk,

Thanks for the question! It's so helpful that you explained where you were coming from on this one; thanks for taking the time to do that!

Let's walk through each answer choice on this one, to make sure my reasoning matches yours.

A: The argument doesn't at all conclude about right vs. wrong, or what one "should" do; it is only concluding that a particular course of action is harmful (not the same thing).This can't be the right answer.
B: This is the right answer. Promoters, by advocating the remedy, are contributing to convincing people to use it; this, in turn, interferes with them pursuing a conventional treatment. I understand why you were thrown off by "interferes," but that is clear from the stimulus--you don't have to read into it to see what they are doing as interfering, because it indicates it does. It just uses more words to say it.
C: Dishonesty? That has nothing to do with the stimulus/argument at all. This one's out.
D: Responsibility is outside the scope of the stimulus; we're only concerned with whether or not it is harmful, not who is responsible for the resulting harm.
E: Responsibility is outside the scope of the stimulus; we're only concerned with whether or not it is harmful, not who is responsible for the resulting harm.

[ange.li6778]

My issue with B is that it seems to require the assumption that people who are persuaded to use folk remedies would have pursued conventional treatments in the absence of folk remedies. That's what "interfere" implied to me, that a person who was seeking conventional treatments was convinced to stop those treatments and use folk remedies instead. That said, I realize B is the least bad answer choice, but it seems to require an assumption that I've developed the instinct to avoid on LSAT questions

[katehos]

Hi Ange,

Totally understandable (and good instinct in general for trying not to assume much on the LSAT). The easiest way to understand "interfere" in this context is to simply break down the argument. All the stimulus is really saying is that promoting folk remedies is harmful because people might end up using an ineffective remedy instead of actually getting treatment. With this in mind, it's best to consider "interfere" as basically a shorter, synonymous way of describing how the promotion of folk remedies might convince someone not to seek helpful treatment.

Hope this helps!
Kate