Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 1 · Question 5

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Some alternative medicines are safe to take, so people who take them won't be harmed and might be helped, and so people should be allowed to prescribe them.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument structure here is important to note—there's an intermediate conclusion. The premise that directly supports the conclusion ("since . . . ") is supported by the initial statement that many of these alternative medicines are safe to consume. The reason this is important is because in Weaken questions, the correct answer will call an assumption into question. If you don't note that there's an intermediate conclusion, you could end up missing a key gap in the argument that the correct answer would address.

So we need to consider assumptions between the premise and intermediate conclusion, and the premises and main point. For the former, if some alternative medicines are safe to consume, is it guaranteed that the people taking them won't be harmed? Not necessarily. Maybe they affect the efficacy of other medications, or maybe they have some other downside despite being safe to eat. Any answer that highlights a downside to these medications would weaken that connection.

Looking at the main point, is it certain that not harming and possibly helping people justifies the conclusion that advocates "should always be allowed" to prescribe them? No, again! There could be other important considerations. Any answer choice that highlights a reason someone shouldn't be able to prescribe something that won't harm and might help will also weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights potential harm that could come from taking alternative medicines. If taking them prevents people from using medicines that actually work, then harm could come from taking them, thus undermining the Doctor's argument in favor of them.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that feature an intermediate conclusion can have gaps in reasoning between premises and that intermediate conclusion, and between the intermediate conclusion and the main point. Failing to look for flaws in both jumps can result in you missing a key assumption that leads to the correct answer—especially in Strengthen/Weaken questions, where you might assume that an intermediate conclusion is a premise that can't be questioned!

Incorrect. The Doctor's argument essentially boils down to, "They don't hurt, so you should be able to take them." People believing they work is out of scope of the argument.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish that the alternative medicines fall are some of the medicines that people can be allergic to.

Incorrect. The reason these medications are prescribed is out of scope since the Doctor relies on them not doing harm to justify prescribing them. That can be true even if they're only prescribed to make money.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that there can be a benefit to alternative medications, thus aligning with the argument, not undermining it.