PT 63, Section 3, #11 People who browse the web...

User avatar
timmydoeslsat
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm

PT 63, Section 3, #11 People who browse the web...

Postby timmydoeslsat » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:39 pm

I missed this one and would like help with it.

It is a necessary assumption question.

Core is:

People that browse web for med info often cannot discriminate between scientifically valid and quackery info. The quackery is appealing because it is written more clearly than scientific papers.
----->
Therefore, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their med condition are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

What initially jumped out to me on this stimulus was the jump in the conclusion about "people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their med condition"....whereas in the stimulus we were simply told of people that browse the web for med info. Two totally different things.

Thus my reason for jumping on choice A.

A negation of (A): People who browse the web for med information typically do NOT do so in attempt to diagnose their med condition.

I felt that this severed the premise link to the conclusion, thus making it necessary to conclude something about people who rely on the web to diagnose med condition.


I do not understand how (B) is necessary:

First, a diagram of (B):

People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good ---> They rely exclusively on scientifically valid information


So to negate that:

Even if people who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are not likely to do themselves more harm than good ---> They DO NOT rely exclusively on scientifically valid information


That does not seem to destroy anything. That does not mean that these people are relying on quackery.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: PT 63, Section 3, #11 People who browse the web...

Postby minnbills » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:19 am

I dug through my old PTs and couldn't find this one. I do sort of remember it so I'll try to help:

People that browse web for med info often cannot discriminate between scientifically valid and quackery info. The quackery is appealing because it is written more clearly than scientific papers.
----->
Therefore, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their med condition are likely to do themselves more harm than good.


The assumption that jumps out at me is the leap from "quackery" to "more harm than good."

Does the argument say quackery is bad? Or that quackery being appealing will lead to "more harm than good?"

User avatar
timmydoeslsat
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: PT 63, Section 3, #11 People who browse the web...

Postby timmydoeslsat » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:12 am

It does not state that quackery is bad and it does not state that quackery being appealing does more harm than good.

However, would you not agree that there is a leap made in the people talked about from the premises to the conclusion?

We are going from people who browse web for med info.....

To people that attempt to diagnose their medical condition.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: PT 63, Section 3, #11 People who browse the web...

Postby minnbills » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:35 pm

It took me a little while but I think I remember now what the issue is.

(A) is incorrect because even if you negated it there would still be room for some people to go in and browse for med info, it would not be typical but it could still happen. Thus, Negating A doesn't jeapordize the reasoning.

Whereas (B) would jeapordize it. You're right to note that there is no explicit connection between browsing for info and trying to self-diagnose, but it doesn't matter because people who would be self-diagnosing would necessarily be browsing for info, so it falls under the umbrella in that way.

Regardless, if you assume that people who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good then the stated conlcusion can logically follow the premises. But if this isn't the case then people attempting to diagnose would necessarily not be likely to do themselves more harm than good. So the conclusion would not be allowed to follow.

I'm having a hard time articulating this so I'm sorry if it isn't clear. Not having it in front of me makes it difficult but I hope that helps.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”