PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 11
People who browse the web for medical information(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(6 more words not shown)
- APeople who browse(16 more words not shown)
- BPeople who attempt(22 more words not shown)
- CPeople who have(29 more words not shown)
- DMany people who(15 more words not shown)
- EPeople attempting to(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being easy to read doesn't make something reliable. A polished page can make an unsupported medical claim sound simple and convincing, while a careful scientific explanation may be difficult for a reader without medical training to understand.
That gives us a reason to worry about people being drawn to bad information. But the conclusion goes further: people using the web to diagnose themselves are likely to do themselves more harm than good. Have we established that step?
Not yet. Information could be appealing and wrong without necessarily producing more harm than benefit. Perhaps someone draws a mistaken conclusion that never affects what they do. Or perhaps following bad advice delays getting appropriate help, in which case harm becomes easier to understand. The passage hasn't told us which result to expect. We shouldn't silently supply that missing connection just because the warning sounds plausible.
What we’re looking for
For the assumption question, focus on the move from relying on unreliable information to likely net harm. The author needs that connection to use the risk of encountering quackery as support for the conclusion. The question isn't asking whether online diagnosis is a good idea in real life; it asks what this argument is relying on.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion concerns people using the web to diagnose their conditions. It doesn't need that to be the usual reason anyone looks up medical information. Many people could be reading about treatment for an already diagnosed condition, for example, while the argument's claim about the self-diagnosing group remained unchanged.
- BCorrect
Work through “unless”: if people attempting to diagnose themselves do not rely exclusively on scientifically valid information, they are likely to do themselves more harm than good. That supplies the connection we were looking for. The premises describe why people may rely on quackery; this assumption explains why that reliance carries the likely harmful result claimed in the conclusion.
B doesn't promise that scientifically valid information guarantees safety. It says that departing from exclusive reliance on it brings the stated risk. That's the direction needed to move from the problem described in the premises toward the conclusion.
- C
The argument doesn't need to guarantee that knowledgeable readers suffer no harm. They might correctly distinguish reliable information and still make some other mistake. The claim about likely harm to people relying on unreliable information doesn't depend on proving perfect safety for a better-informed group.
- D
Finding clearly written material appealing is different from believing that only clearly written material can be scientific. Someone could know that scientific papers are valid but find them too hard to understand. The argument needs the connection to harm, not this additional belief about what makes information valid.
- E
This sends the connection the wrong way. It says that if self-diagnosis does more harm than good, reliance on quackery must be involved. But we're starting with the risk of relying on quackery and trying to reach likely harm. E doesn't tell us that quackery is likely to cause that outcome. It could be true even if many people relying on quackery avoided net harm, so it doesn't supply the needed direction.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.