#11 - People who browse the web for medical information

[Strongam]

Thank you Francis.

Yes this helps me out. I forgot that because it is an assumption question, the answer can include things not listed in the stimulus. I think in my efforts to explain myself I have gone too deep into the language and forgot what type of question it is. The language used still confuses me and it is difficult for me to explain why but thank you for helping me remember the question type.

[blade21cn]

Since "likely to do themselves more harm than good" is a new term found only in the conclusion, I pre-phrased a supporter answer choice that would link the premises with the conclusion. Specifically, the conclusion is a "most" statement ("likely ... more ..."), whereas the premise describes an inability to discriminate, which sounds like a 50 to 50 chance. The reason that a supporter answer choice is a necessary assumption is that any slight change would sever the link between the premises and the conclusion and the argument would consequently collapse. Thus, it is vital that the link uses the exact language mentioned both in the premises and the conclusion.

(B) states "unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information," which can be paraphrased as "if they do not rely exclusively on scientifically valid information," which can then be paraphrased as "if they sometimes rely on scientifically invalid information," but the premise describes an inability to discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery (AKA: scientifically invalid information). So the LSAT writers apparently equivocate these two concepts: occasional reliance on scientifically invalid information v. inability to discriminate between scientifically valid and invalid information. Is such equivocation justified? I felt that inability to discriminate between scientifically valid and invalid information does not necessarily mean that the final information you end up using and thus relying upon is sometimes scientifically invalid. It can very well be a fluke/coincidence that even though people were unable to discriminate but somehow guess it right each time.

Also, the second sentence was not used in getting to the correct answer, specifically with the claim that "quackery is usually written more clearly than scientific papers." How do we reconcile that? There are plenty of LR questions where the reason that the correct answer is credited is because it interacts with a premise that is otherwise not contributing to the argument.

Lastly, (B) talks about "people who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions," whereas the conclusion talks about "people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions," which is a subgroup of the people mentioned in (B). Why do we have to necessarily assume something about this larger/more general group of people, when this argument has nothing to do with people who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions through other means, e.g., researching hard copy books. Thanks!

[desiboy96]

Hello, I just wanted to see if my reasoning for eliminating E is correct. Looking at choice, I decided not got with it because the language was much stronger compared to choice B.

Why? Because choice E says, "people attempting to diagnose their medical conditions WILL do ...."

On the other hand, B uses the word "LIKLEY".

Since we're dealing with a necessary assumption question, I assumed that we needed an answer that would provide just enough support for the conclusion to hold which is why I chose B. Is my reasoning correct?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi blade21cn and desiboy96!

blade21cn: If you can't discriminate between scientifically valid and invalid information, the likelihood of you somehow always guessing right and only using scientifically valid information in your decision-making would be very low. Technically possible? Sure. But I would say you can consider these concepts functionally equivalent here, especially when considering all of your answer choice possibilities. And it's always good to look for premises that aren't directly tied to conclusions, but there will often be premises that don't end up playing a big role in the argument or in answering the question, so it's not a major cause for concern. As for your last question, answer choice (B) just connects the premise to the conclusion. It doesn't have to be specific to web research. If people who use the web to diagnose themselves cannot differentiate between valid and invalid information, and people who don't rely only on valid information to make their decisions are likely to do more harm then good, then people who use the web to diagnose themselves are likely to do more harm than good.

desiboy96: Not quite. You're the right that you should be careful to not choose an answer choice in an Assumption question that provides more than what is basically necessary. But answer choice (E) has much bigger problems with the conditional reasoning than with the comparison between the "will" and the "likely."

As Steve said earlier in the thread:

Answer E says that the only way people can possibly harm themselves is by relying on quackery--there's no other way anyone could ever harm themselves. This is a much more broad assumption than required by the author’s argument, so it cannot be the right answer choice.

And check out Nikki's explanation of how to negate (E) for the Assumption Negation Technique:

Answer choice (E) contains a conditional statement, which can be diagrammed as follows:

Do more harm than good Rely on quackery instead of valid info

To logically negate this answer choice, you need to show that the sufficient condition can occur even in the absence of the necessary condition. In other words, the logical opposite of answer choice (E) would state,

People can do themselves more harm than good even if they don't rely on quackery to diagnose their medical conditions.

In other words, you can harm yourself even if you use scientifically valid information. Nobody said that relying on scientifically valid information precludes the possibility of harm, which is why the logical opposite of answer choice (E) has no bearing on the conclusion of the argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[desiboy96]

Awesome! Thank you so much Kelsey!

[flowskiferda]

I got this right because the other choices were so obviously false, but I'm still a little hung up on the "exclusively" part of choice B.
The argument concludes that people are likely to do more harm than good because there's quackery and it's appealing. One of two assumptions is necessary to reach such a conclusion.

1)People rely so much on quackery because it's so appealing and thus the quackery is only dangerous because of its magnitude in relation to the accurate info they rely on. Perhaps they're only likely to do more harm because 95% of the information they rely on is quackery. Maybe if that amount were only 30% or 40% it would be fine, thus permitting the possibility that exclusive reliance on accurate info isn't necessary to not do more harm than good.

2) any amount of quackery will make them likely to do more harm than good.

Nothing in the stimulus indicates that the conclusion is reached using assumption 1 rather than assumption 2.

Am I missing something or was this just a poorly written question?

Thanks!

[flowskiferda]

I got this right because the other choices were so obviously false, but I'm still a little hung up on the "exclusively" part of choice B.
The argument concludes that people are likely to do more harm than good because there's quackery and it's appealing. One of two assumptions is necessary to reach such a conclusion.

1)People rely so much on quackery because it's so appealing and thus the quackery is only dangerous because of its magnitude in relation to the accurate info they rely on. Perhaps they're only likely to do more harm because 95% of the information they rely on is quackery. Maybe if that amount were only 30% or 40% it would be fine, thus permitting the possibility that exclusive reliance on accurate info isn't necessary to not do more harm than good.

2) any amount of quackery will make them likely to do more harm than good.

Nothing in the stimulus indicates that the conclusion is reached using assumption 1 rather than assumption 2.

Am I missing something or was this just a poorly written question?

Thanks!

Near the end I meant to say "assumption 2 rather than assumption 1."

[Adam Tyson]

The argument doesn't rely on any assumptions about why people rely on quackery, flowskiferda. The argument simply tells us that some people find it appealing because it is more clearly written. Focus on the conclusion, though, and notice what new information it brings up: relying on quackery is likely to do more harm than good. Where did the author get this idea about harm? Who says that relying on quackery is any less valuable, or more harmful, than relying on "scientifically valid" information? That's where the assumption lies, as it does in so many arguments: in the new information that appears in the conclusion, without any mention of it in the premises.

Once you see that "harm" is the new idea, prephrasing the assumption is just a matter of linking the ideas in the premises to that new idea. "Relying on quackery is harmful" is one way to look at it. "You are likely to harm yourself if you don't rely only on scientifically valid stuff" is another way of looking at it from a different angle. Either way, you have to focus on the new element of "harm." It's not about why people rely on it, or how much they do so. It's just that if they do rely on quackery, they will be harmed.

And of course, if you aren't sure about the answer, try the Negation Technique on it. What if people are not likely to harm themselves by relying on things other than scientifically valid information? What if, in other words, you could rely on quackery and be fine most of the time? That would ruin this argument, and that's the mark of a good Assumption answer: the negation ruins the argument.

[flowskiferda]

Hi Adam, thanks for the response!

I think you might have misunderstood my comment; I apologize for not making it clearer.

I did not mean to indicate that the argument relies on assumptions about why people rely on quackery. I'm saying that the argument concludes that quackery will harm people from the mere fact that quackery exists. Clearly, as you point out, it requires some assumption about why reliance on quackery is harmful.
Negating C rules out one of the ways in which quackery is harmful, but it does not prevent many of the other ways that the conclusion can be reached. Maybe quackery is totally fine if people rely 99% on valid information and 1% quackery, and it's only likely to do more harm than good if people rely on it beyond a certain point (let's say, for example, over 10%); thus the real reason quackery is dangerous is just that it's so ubiquitous and/or attractive, so people almost always rely on more than 10% quackery (this was assumption 1 in my previous comment). The negation of C allows for all of this.


I guess I just need to get used to the fact that negating a necessary assumption doesn't always completely destroy an argument, it just makes it quite a bit harder to justify, as is the case with this question. Should I treat necessary assumption questions as something more like "which of the following assumptions, if negated, would require us to come up with the most additional support to justify the argument"?

[Adam Tyson]

The correct answer to an assumption question, when negated, should ruin the argument, but that doesn't mean it has to disprove the conclusion. An argument is ruined if the conclusion lacks any support from the premises! Take this example:

The UNC Tarheels will win the man's basketball championship next weekend, because I had a dream in which it happened.

What did I assume? That my dream was a prophetic dream rather than, say, wish fulfillment.

What if my dream was not prophetic? What if it was just me dreaming what I wanted to happen? That would ruin the argument because my evidence would no longer support my conclusion. My dream would provide no evidence of anything real happening. The assumption is necessary, because without it I'm just babbling nonsense.

But the Tarheels could still win, right?

Go Heels!