PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 21
A smoker trying to quit is more likely(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APeople tend to(5 more words not shown)
- BMost of the(13 more words not shown)
- CThe more the(13 more words not shown)
- DPeople generally do(7 more words not shown)
- EA doctor is(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could someone use this trick on themselves?
The passage says a doctor's exaggerated warning can make a smoker more likely to quit. We can accept that claim for the argument. I might also wonder whether lying to someone is justified, even to help them. But that isn't the conclusion here. The author is making a claim about who needs to deliver the warning.
Because the technique involves deception, the author says people cannot easily use it without a doctor or another third party. Why? Suppose I am very good at convincing myself that a habit is more dangerous than it actually is. Then I might be able to frighten myself into changing it. The need for someone else would no longer be so clear.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, I want something that answers that objection. The argument needs self-deception to be difficult enough that people generally can't easily supply the exaggerated warning for themselves. Notice the modest wording of the conclusion: it says “cannot easily,” not “cannot ever.” We don't need an assumption that deceiving yourself is impossible.
Working the answers
- A
“Whatever doctors tell them” covers far more than this technique. A person could respond to an exaggerated warning about a habit without generally accepting everything a doctor says. The argument also allows another third party to deliver the warning. It doesn't depend on a broad rule of unquestioning trust in doctors.
- B
We are told that similar strategies can help break other habits. That doesn't mean most techniques used to quit smoking work on other habits. Other methods could be specific to smoking, and the claim about this warning strategy could still hold.
- C
This introduces a sliding scale: more exaggeration must bring more success. The passage only says a greatly exaggerated warning helps compared with the situation without that warning. It doesn't require every further increase to work better. An extreme exaggeration might even become unbelievable.
- DCorrect
If people generally find it hard to deceive themselves, that explains why they can't easily use this deceptive strategy on their own. Someone else can provide the warning without the recipient knowing exactly how it was exaggerated.
If people generally found self-deception easy, our objection would remain: they could give themselves a frightening account and believe it. The reason offered for needing outside help would fall apart. D supplies the missing connection while leaving room for exceptions.
- E
This answers the ethical question that came to mind while reading. But the argument isn't trying to establish when doctors are justified in deceiving patients. The strategy could be effective and difficult to perform on yourself even if using it were unjustified. Moral permission is separate from the conclusion about needing someone else.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.