PrepTest 133

Incorrect. The conclusion is about those who "rely on the web when attempting to diagnose" themselves, so there's no assumption that this group makes up any particular proportion of those who are looking online at medical advice.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Searching online for medical advice has expert opinion and "quackery" and the latter is more appealing. Therefore, looking online for medical advice is likely to do more harm than good.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here brings up an entirely new consideration—doing more harm than good to oneself. There's no discussion of harm or benefit in the premises.

What there is a discussion of is good online medical advice and junk science. The latter is noted as being more appealing because it's written more clearly—it's much easier to write something easy to understand when you can just make it up!

The conclusion—looking online for medical advice is likely to do more harm than good—is relying on people using this "quackery" instead of the scientifically valid advice. However, there's no indication that that will do more harm than good—maybe it'll give people a feeling of control that is beneficial, or maybe it won't have an effect at all and thus can't do more harm than good. Since the argument relies on this advice resulting in harm, we should look for an answer establishing that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the new idea in the conclusion—doing yourself more harm than good—to the premises. While it talks about not relying solely on scientifically valid information, using quackery at all would satisfy that condition. If people who attempt to diagnose themselves aren't likely to do themselves harm even when they rely on non-scientifically valid information, then the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
In Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, the conclusion will frequently bring up a new idea that hasn't been mentioned in the premises. When this happens, the correct answer will likely connect to that new concept in some way.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require anyone to be able to avoid doing themselves more harm than good. While the conclusion is qualified with a "likely," that doesn't actually require anyone to avoid doing harm to themselves, and it certainly doesn't require a specific group to avoid harming themselves.

Incorrect. The assumptions being made by the readers are out of scope here—what matters is the actual impact of looking online for medical help.

Incorrect. While the argument does rely on people relying on quackery doing themselves more harm than good, it doesn't rely on this being the only way they can harm themselves. An argument concluding that one thing has an effect doesn't assume nothing else does. (An argument that concludes an effect proves a certain cause, on the other hand, is assuming that there are no other potential causes.)