PrepTest 145, Section 2, Question 16
Some people see no harm in promoting a(39 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AOne should not(13 more words not shown)
- BIt is harmful(13 more words not shown)
- CTo convince people(14 more words not shown)
- DA person is(16 more words not shown)
- EA person who(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Doing nothing for a condition can still cause harm if it keeps someone from getting useful treatment. Imagine a person relying on a supposed tea remedy for cancer instead of pursuing treatment that would help. The concern isn't that the tea directly injures the person. It's what the person misses while relying on it.
What we’re looking for
That's the author's response to the 'no effect, no harm' defense. People can continue an ineffective remedy for years rather than seek conventional treatment that would almost certainly benefit them. The principle question asks us to connect that lost benefit to harm: interfering with someone doing something likely to help them is itself harmful.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us what someone should not promote if they believe it will cause harm. We first need to establish the argument's conclusion that promoting this ineffective remedy does cause harm. A gives a rule about what to do once harm is believed, rather than connecting the lost treatment benefit to harm.
- BCorrect
Interfering with a likely benefit is harmful. Promoting the ineffective remedy convinces people to stay with it instead of pursuing treatment that would almost certainly help. That interference fits the principle and supports the conclusion.
The remedy need not directly poison or injure anyone for this reasoning to work. Keeping people from a helpful course of action supplies the harm the author identifies.
- C
Dishonesty is a different issue. A promoter might sincerely believe the remedy works, so knowing there is no evidence isn't established. More importantly, even a sincere promoter could steer people away from helpful treatment. The argument concerns harm, not whether the promoter is lying.
- D
This addresses responsibility for harm after harm has occurred. It doesn't tell us why preventing a likely benefit counts as harm in the first place. Intentional or unintentional, we still need that missing connection.
- E
Being partly responsible for an action's consequences doesn't establish that those consequences are harmful. The conclusion concerns whether this promotion causes harm, rather than how responsibility should be divided. B supplies the relevant principle.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.