PrepTest 137

Incorrect. While the comparison between the groups could be categorized as an analogy, the conclusion isn't that medical professionals shouldn't be susceptible to junk medicine, but rather that their susceptibility to it requires a separate explanation. Since this answer doesn't properly describe the conclusion, it's incorrect.

Incorrect. There's no hypothesis that Tamika argues against. And even if you decided that her ruling out an explanation was the same as arguing against a hypothesis, she doesn't do so on the basis that the hypothesis doesn't apply to everyone. That would look like her saying that some believe falling for junk medicine can be explained by a lack of knowledge, but that can't explain medical professionals falling for it, so therefore that can't be the explanation for anyone.

Incorrect. Tamika relies on their expertise to show that there must be another explanation than lack of knowledge for them falling for the junk medicine, so she doesn't cast doubt on that expertise.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Average people want solutions to complex medical problems, but they lack knowledge, so they fall for junk medicine. However, medical professionals do have knowledge, so them falling for junk medicine can't be similarly explained.

Answer Anticipation:
Methods of Reasoning questions task us with describing how the author gets to the conclusion, so that's a good place to start. And the conclusion here is about medical professionals.

That's a bit weird, since most of the stimulus is about people who aren't medical professionals. So the argument must be comparing these groups in some way. Does it focus on similarities or differences? Well, both. The two groups are different in that one has medical knowledge and the other doesn't, but they're similar in that they both fall for the same junk medicine. Since Tamika uses the element that's different to explain this phenomenon in the first group, she then concludes that the different element can't serve as an explanation in the second group.

That's a long, abstract way of saying that Tamika brings up a relevant difference between the groups to show that an explanation that works for one of them doesn't work for the other.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights everything from our longer anticipation! The two groups are different in their knowledge, but similar in their behavior (accepting junk medicine). Tamika uses the difference to highlight that there must be different explanations for that similarity. This answer highlights how Tamika uses comparisons in reaching her conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies crucially on analogies and comparisons, make sure you understand how the elements match up and what similarities and differences are highlighted. It will be key to finding the correct answer.

Incorrect. Tamika argues that an explanation that works in one case shouldn't be accepted in another, so this answer doesn't properly describe the argument.