PrepTest 117

Incorrect. The argument relies on people believing what doctors tell them about the downsides of practices such as smoking, not "whatever" they're told by doctors. They don't have to believe the doctor when she says that a restaurant has the best steak!

Incorrect. The argument establishes that some similar strategies work on smoking and other habits; it doesn't assume that most do.

Incorrect. There's no indication that a greater exaggeration leads to an increased likelihood of success in quitting a bad habit. It could be that there's a range of exaggeration that leads to a certain peak of success.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Goal — Quit a bad habit
Approach — Believe that the dangers are larger than they are
Problem — This involves deception
Conclusion — This approach needs to be done by a doctor or third party

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into the goal/approach pattern—specifically, it brings up a problem with an approach.

Here, the goal is to quit a bad habit, and the approach is to end up believing that the downsides of that habit are worse than they actually are. The problem, as the stimulus notes, is that this involves deception, and so the person overstating the downsides must be a third party.

Why is that? The stimulus argues that it must be done by someone else because it involves deception. It's assuming, then, that anything involving deception can't be done by yourself. In other words, it's assuming that people are bad at lying to themselves. (We've seen enough people in denial about their study habits to know that this isn't a great assumption!)

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up the assumption between the premise and the conclusion. The argument concludes that a certain strategy for quitting a bad habit must be done by someone else because it involves deception. That assumes that people find it hard to deceive themselves. If people generally find it easy to deceive themselves, then this strategy can be carried out with a reliance on a third party.

Key Takeaway:
This assumption is a particular dangerous one because it seems like it would be common sense—you can't convince yourself that something is more dangerous than you know it to be, right? Not necessarily. When you're finding yourself accepting something that isn't explicitly stated, ask yourself if the gap that you've identified is connected inherently, or by the definition. Is deception by definition something you can't do to yourself? Not at all—plenty of people are in denial, or lie to themselves.

Incorrect. First, the argument doesn't draw any judgment on the action here—there's no discussion of whether this approach is justified, just whether it's effective. Second, this answer is too broad ("whenever") similar to (A).