Q11 - People who browse the web

[timmydoeslsat]

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.

[yoohoo081]

I'm confused as well.
Please he'll with this question!
Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great questions.

Within the conclusion, there are two New Terms that need to be linked up with the premises:

- People who rely on the web to diagnose their medical conditions

and

- likely to do more harm than good

That first idea needs to connect to "People who browse the web for medical information".

The second idea needs to connect to "unable to discriminate between quackery/science, finding quackery more appealing than scientifically valid information".

(A) is tempting since it attempts to bridge those ideas, but it does so in the reverse of the order we care about.

I agree with the way you negated (A):

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

But "typically do not" doesn't sever a connection, and in this direction the negation would not weaken the argument.

The conclusion only cares about the people who DO diagnose themselves online, so it doesn't matter whether that's 10% or 90% of "People who browse the web for medical info".

What matters is whether the people who do diagnose themselves TYPICALLY browse the web for medical information.

The argument wants to flow in this order:

Rely on web to diagnose --> browse web for medical info --> can't discriminate between science/quackery and find quackery more appealing than science --> do themselves more harm than good.

For choice (B) you saw the "unless" that makes that claim a conditional statement, and you symbolized the conditional relationship correctly.

NOT likely to do more harm than good --> rely exclusively on science

When Necessary Assumption offers you a conditional idea as an answer choice, you should analyze whether or not it matches the flow of logic from premise to conclusion.

(I would NOT recommend negating conditionals, but we'll get to that in a second)

As you might suspect, it would pay to consider the contrapositive of (B):

NOT relying exclusively on scientifically valid info ---> likely to do themselves more harm than good.

Does that match the Prem --> Conc flow of the argument? Yes.

Don't get me wrong, I'd pick (B) but I wouldn't like it.
The language of "relying or not relying exclusively on scientifically valid info" is a considerable stretch from what it's supposed to match up with in the premise: "whether one can discriminate between science/quackery, which one is written more clearly, and which one is appealing".

Getting back to how you negated (B) ...
consider this conditional
If you're a girl, then you like Justin Bieber
Girl --> LJB

How do we negate that?

Your version of negating a conditional seemed to be
1. put "Even if" in front
2. negate the necessary condition

Even if you're a girl, you don't like Justin Bieber

That's not really accurate. Another way to say the original conditional would be "All girls like Justin Bieber". So the negation of that is pretty clearly "NOT all girls like JB." This means the same thing as "Some girls do NOT like JB."

I don't think that "some girls do NOT like JB" is the same as
"even if you're a girl, you don't like JB"

The idea of negating a conditional is just saying "there is NOT a universal connection between the first idea and the second idea."

So negating the original conditional to me would be like saying "you could be a girl and either like JB or not like JB".

You could slightly amend your system by doing this:
1. Put "even if" in front
2. Put "not necessarily" in front of the necessary

Even if you're a girl, you don't necessarily like JB.

Ultimately, there's rarely a point on this test when I would need to negate a conditional.

For the sake of Nec Assumpt, as I said before, when the answers give you a conditional statement, they are correct if they match up with the Prem --> Conc flow/strength of the argument, and they are wrong otherwise.

fyi,
(C) is talking about people NOT doing themselves harm while relying on the web to self-diagnose. The conclusion is about people who DO harm themselves, so this is out of scope.

In more technical terms, this is a false negation of the argument.

The author thinks:
Can't discriminate --> do yourself more harm than good
so this answer says
Can discriminate --> don't do yourself harm

(D) doesn't address either of the new terms in the conclusion (it's lost in the world of the premises), and it creates a conditional relationship between "assuming something is clearly written" and "scientifically valid" ... the argument doesn't need a conditional relationship between those two ideas

(E) is a reversal of the argument's logic

the author thinks:
rely on quackery vs. science --> do more harm than good

and this answer says:
do more harm than good --> rely on quackery vs. science

Let me know if you want clarification on any of this.

#officialexplanation

[timmydoeslsat]

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I was in a timed section, had it down to A and B, thought that the "exclusively" was too strong on B, went with A. Had I really thought about the negation of A not really addressing the issue of what happens to people who do browse the web to diagnose...I would not have chosen A.

Thanks again.

[jennifer]

Can someone please explain the difference between E and B. In reference to E doesn't "only if" connote the necessary? Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Jennifer, you're right about "only if" signifying a necessary idea (so does "unless").

The real issue between (B) and (E) is which idea comes first and which idea comes second.

For (B), the conditional logic we get is:

NOT likely to do more harm than good --> rely exclusively on science

The contrapositive of that statement is what really matches the argument:

DON'T rely exclusively on science --> likely to do more harm than good

For (E), the conditional logic we get is:

do more harm than good --> rely on quackery instead of science.

Both of these answers connect an idea from the premise to the idea from the conclusion, but they do it in opposite order.

(B) says
Premise --> Conclusion

(E) says
Conclusion --> Premise

"IF conclusion" will always be wrong. Conclusions are what we are trying to prove, and the ideas we are proving belong on the right side of the arrow. The basis on which we're proving them belongs on the left side of the arrow.

Of course, when the test wants to disguise a good answer like (B), they give it to us as the contrapositive:
~Conclusion --> ~Premise

"If NOT conclusion" is a promising start to an answer.

Let's think of a quick, simple example:
Barry is on the Supreme Court. Hence, Barry is a lawyer.

Premise: barry is on supreme court
Conclusion: barry is a lawyer

What is being assumed?

1- You can't be a lawyer unless you're on the Supreme Court
or
2- You can't be on the Supreme Court unless you're a lawyer

Another way to write those is with "only if":
1 - You are a lawyer only if you're on the Supreme Court
2 - You are on the Supreme Court only if you're a lawyer

1 is diagrammed: Lawyer --> Supreme Court
2 is diagrammed: Supreme Court --> Lawyer

Naturally, #2 is the right way to go with this in both cases, but that's partially easy to pick because you know the truth of this relationship in real life.

If you want the mechanical justification for why 2 is what we want, not 1, just remember that a correct answer would look like:
Premise --> Conclusion
or
~Conclusion --> ~Premise

meanwhile, INCORRECT answers appear like:
Conclusion --> Premise
or
~Premise --> ~Conclusion
(choice (C) on this question was basically giving us this last formulation)

I hope that helps. Let me know if it's still confusing.

[monicajamaluddin]

I got this wrong and chose A. but for B, the way I can make sense of it is to think, ok what's the missing link bw the premise and conclusion and i came up with:

If you rely on quackery --> you're likely to do more harm than good

B says : ~more harm than good --> rely exclusively on scientifically valid data (also reads: ~rely on quackery)

Is that a valid way to be looking at this?

[shaynfernandez]

The argument wants to flow in this order:

Rely on web to diagnose --> browse web for medical info --> can't discriminate between science/quackery and find quackery more appealing than science --> do themselves more harm than good.

I get where the connection is made by quackery and the necessary condition (more harm then good).

I guess I just don't get where "people who attempt to diagnose medical conditions online" jumps to the front of the chain... I mean that is kind of an assumption in itself.

We never attach that to "people who browse the web for medical information" in answer choice B. it seems like we just let that assumptions slip by unlinked.

[nicholasasquith]

I actually picked B from doing PoE, (A) couldn't be right because to negate it doesn't invalidate the argument. I just couldn't understand why (B) was correct until I re-wrote the conditional statement. I think its written less intuitively and thus I overlooked that it is just saying "If you aren't doing yourself more harm than good, then you're relying exclusively on scientifically valid information".

I think a more obvious assumption would be something like "Quackery usually does more harm than good" or "Those who rely on the web do not also use scientifically valid information". Instead I think the answer choice is pretty strong for a NA and says that if you're not likely to have harmed yourself, you must have relied only on the valid information.

[tomada36]

I narrowed my choices to (B) and (E), ultimately choosing (B), but probably for the wrong reason.

The argument includes are likely to which parallels part of choice (B). However, choice (E) includes will do which does not parallel the phrasing in the argument. On that basis, I opted for (B) although, as I mentioned, I can't imagine that difference to truly be relevant.

[ohthatpatrick]

Quick follow-ups to some of the last few questions ...

I wrote at one point that this is the intended flow of the argument:

Rely on web to diagnose --> browse web for medical info --> can't discriminate between science/quackery and find quackery more appealing than science --> do themselves more harm than good.

Someone said, "isn't that first connection an assumption in itself?" Yes. In the original post I wrote, we listed this as one of the two main assumptions created by the new terms/ideas in the conclusion.

You made it sound like (B) needed to PROVE the argument by connecting this first link as well. But this is Necessary Assumption. The correct answer does not prove the argument (that's Sufficient Assumption).

Several people have commented on how unappealingly (B) is written. I, of course, agree. I'm surprised though that no one has yet written the conditional as this:

IF you're not relying exclusively on scientifically valid info
(i.e. IF you're relying on any quackery)
THEN you're likely to do yourself more harm than good.

To me, that was the way that (B) clicked best. If you see a conditional trigger such as "unless" or "only if", remember to try reading it as written AND as its contrapositive. A lot of times they try to disguise legit ideas in contrapositive form, since a correct answer can sound way less appealing that way.

In terms of the unmentioned other answers:

(C) Conversationally, we don't need to assume ANYTHING about people who CAN tell the difference between science and quackery ... we don't need to assume anything about people who AREN'T doing themselves harm. This whole argument is about people who CAN'T tell the difference and who are LIKELY to do themselves harm.

(D) Do we need to assume that many people think, "IF something is not clearly written THEN it is scientifically valid"? No, that sounds crazy. We don't need to assume that many people think crazy thoughts. The context for the 'clearly written' was merely that quackery is usually written more clearly than rigorous science. That's a very normal, moderate thought ... a very far cry from the conditional (D) gives us.

(E) This is too strong because of "will do" ... the argument only needs to assume that they "likely will do". Moreover, this logic of this is backwards. We always want PREM --> CONC, so we would need something that sounds like
IF rely on quackery instead of science
THEN you're likely to do yourself more harm than good

This is diagrammed
IF you're going to do yourself harm
THEN you're relying on quackery instead of science.

Hope this helps.

[kyuya]

Argument breakdown

- People browsing the internet for medical info. often can't discriminate between valid information and bad information
- bad info is written more clearly, and therefore it is more appealing to people with no medical background
- therefore, relying on the web to diagnose = more harm than good

Essentially the argument is saying this, BECAUSE people are using non-scientifically valid info, they are more likely to do more harm than good. What does this mean? The assumption is that if they were relying on valid information, they would not be doing more harm than good.

A.) doesn't tell us much, and is actually pretty redundant when we look back to the conclusion (the last sentence of the stimulus in this case). No real new information that would make this assumption necessary

C.) The stimulus tells us about people who can not discriminate from good info / bad info, and whether or not it is likely to do them harm. However, we are told nothing about the people who DO have medical information / knowledge, and whether or not relying on the web will be detrimental to them.

D.) This is not assumed. The stimulus states that since non-valid info is clearly written, its more appealing (presumably because it is easier to understand) -- NOT because they assume that clearly written work is any more legitimate scientifically than hard information. I actually picked this as the right answer, but I think this is why it is wrong. It is really tough to make this distinction under timed conditions (well for me any way.. )

E.) "ONLY IF" is problematic here. This makes the conditions unnecessarily tight and restricted, when this is not something the argument requires. The argument essentially states that relying on bad info on the web is sufficient to make people do more harm than good. However, it is possible that people could harm themselves in attempting to diagnose their medical conditions in other ways as well - perhaps even using legit information and misinterpreting it.

On to the right answer..

(B) As I hinted to in the initial breakdown, the assumption in this stimulus seems to be that quackery is not nearly as good as legit science info.. so if they focus on scientific information, they will NOT do more harm than good. I think this answer choices nails it.

[hnadgauda]

One prephrase of mine was that people read quackery which is why I found C appealing.

The premise states quackery is more appealing because it is clearly written.

C can be diagrammed as:

scientifically valid --> clearly written
~clearly written --> ~scientifically valid

C is not triggered.

For my prephrase to work, the necessary assumption would have be:

clearly written --> ~scientifically valid

Therefore C can be eliminated.

[CharlesS800]

I diagrammed this question as:

People who browse web for medical info often cannot discriminate between valid science and quackery + Quackery is particularly appealing to readers with not medical background because it is written more clearly ---> People who rely on the web to diagnose themselves are likely to do more harm than good

The largest gap that I saw upon examining this argument was the portion of the conclusion claiming self diagnosis online would do more harm than good, something not previously mentioned in the premises. So it seemed like the argument was assuming rely on quackery = bad diagnosis = bad for you. With this in mind, I proceeded to the answer choices.

I eliminated A right off the bat because I felt that the tail end of the choice, "attempt to diagnose their medical conditions," was out of scope of the argument.

I kept answer choices B and C as they seemed somewhat relevant.

I got rid of answer choice D because it seemed that the clearness of the writing of online information was not relevant to the gaps that I had identified, and therefore, not necessary.

E seemed to mention the right elements but after evaluating it further, it struck me that it was a reversal of the gap that I was in search of and went conclusion ---> premise, so it was gone too.

I ultimately negated both B and C. Negating B seemed to crater the argument but I considered C too. I finally decided to eliminate C because of two factors: its focus on those with sufficient medical knowledge instead of the larger "people" population mention in the argument and because the negated form of this argument seemed to support, rather than weaken the argument I identified.

Would love to hear if I negated things wrong or otherwise was incorrect in the way that I evalauted or analyzed the answer choices.

[BarryM800]

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!

[IrisH894]

I think the best way to approach this question is to ignore the tiny differences in detail and phrasing and just throw away that extremely rigorous mindset we'd use when we approach a sufficient assumption question.
Basically, the correct answer choice, C, assumes that :
cannot discriminate between scientific valid information and quackery = does not rely exclusively on scientifically valid information
That's kind of a significant gap that we wouldn't easily ignore on any other LR question. And I wasn't happy with it either. The first time I went through the answer choices I eliminated all 5, and that's when I realized that I had to take a different approach.
This is a classic question where you have to work from wrong to right, and it's also a classic question where you have to pay extra attention to the general flow/spirit of the answer choices instead of the details.
For example, we know that the conclusion is basically saying that a group of people are likely to do themselves more harm than good.
Answer choice A is saying that a larger group of people (people who browse the web for medical information) typically belong in the group designated by the conlusion (people who rely on the web when trying to diagnose themselves). But for the conclusion to stand, we don't care how the group it talks about is formed; we only care about what happens to them (are they more likely to harm themselves).
Sure, the premise starts by talking about that larger group of people and the conclusion jumps to the smaller group. But the smaller group doesn't have to constitute a majority of the larger group for the conclusion to stand (that's what typically means); think about it, even if people who search the web for medical information rarely do so to diagnose themselves, along as they do themselves more harm than good, then the same conclusion stands for people who go on the web for self-diagnosis, which is a natural sub-category.
Answer choice B allows us to derive the conclusion we want, because the direction of the conditional statement is right. Via the contrapositive, we get a statement that says that people who don't rely exclusively on scientifically valid info are likely to do themselves more harm than good. If the sufficient condition is satisfied, we'll get a statement very similar to what we want.
Answer choice C is just blatantly wrong--how could arguing that a small sub-group of people will do themselves no harm help us in reaching the conclusion that a group of people will likely do themselves harm? This doesn't even stregthen the argument, it weakens. This is eliminated right away.
Answer choice D is irrelevant in every possible way.
Answer choice E, puts the conclusion we want (people doing themselves more harm than good) in the position of the sufficient condition. So even if the necessary condition is satisfied, the conclusion doesn't have to be true. We don't even need to look at what it specifically says; the direction of the conditional statement is obviously wrong.