#11 - People who browse the web for medical information

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)

People who search the Internet for their medical information in many cases cannot tell the difference
between legitimate scientific information and “quackery.” A lot of the quackery, the author says,
is more appealing to laymen because it is often written in more broadly accessible language than
that you normally find in scientific journals. Therefore, the author asserts, those who count on the
web exclusively for their medical diagnoses are likely to do themselves more harm than good. The
new element that’s been introduced is the likelihood of doing themselves more harm than good; the
author asserts when people rely on Internet-based self-diagnoses, they are likely to do themselves
more harm than good, because they cannot tell what medical information is scientifically legitimate.

Answer choice (A): It is not necessary to the author’s conclusion that the typical Internet search
be for the sake of diagnoses, so this cannot be the correct answer to this Assumption question. To
confirm, we can apply the Assumption Negation technique, negating the answer choice to assess
whether taking away a given assumption is detrimental to the conclusion of the argument. Negating
this choice, we get the following:

People who browse the web typically do not do so in order to self diagnose. Since this negated
version does not hurt the author’s conclusion, it can be confidently eliminated from consideration.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, because people who do rely on the Internet
for self diagnoses cannot tell what is scientifically legitimate and what isn’t, so unless people rely
exclusively on scientifically legitimate information (and don’t rely at all on anything other than
legitimate info), they are, according to the author, likely to do themselves more harm than good.

This is a tricky correct answer choice, because it does not mention quackery at all. This is still the
needed assumption however, because the hazard lay in the fact that people who rely on the Internet
cannot tell what information is scientifically legitimate and what isn’t.

Answer choice (C): The author merely says that the inability to distinguish valid information from
invalid will likely lead to more harm than good—the author does not guarantee that the ability to
distinguish the valid from the invalid will protect one from harm, so this is not an assumption on
which the argument relies.

Again, to confirm that it is incorrect, we can apply the Assumption Negation technique to the answer
choice, arriving at the following:

People who know enough to distinguish the valid information from the invalid might still do
themselves harm if they rely on the web when diagnosing their medical conditions.

Again, since this does not weaken the conclusion from the stimulus, it cannot be the right answer
choice.

Answer choice (D): This is a difficult wrong answer choice because of the way it is worded, but
basically it breaks down as follows: Many who search the internet assume that information has to
be clearly written to be scientifically valid. The author points out that many people prefer the nonscientific,
but clearly written, invalid information. This is not the same as assuming that people
equate clear writing with scientific validity.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice says that the only way people can possibly harm themselves
is by relying on quackery. This is a much more broad assumption than required by the author’s
argument, so it cannot be the right answer choice.

[rachue]

Hi,

I'm having a hard time understanding why B is solid here. I chose D but didn't really like either choice. For B I'm having a problem with the "Unless" part at the end of it. Couldn't there be "middle-ground" info on the net, not just sci valid info and quackery? What about medications that haven't been tested yet but are possibly beneficial and not harmful?

[Steve Stein]

This is a great question. It's tricky, because while the author happens to specify that these internet researchers can't distinguish valid info from quackery, the hazard really lies in the fact that these people cannot tell what information is scientifically valid and what isn’t. The argument basically breaks down as follows:

People who browse the web to self diagnose cannot tell what information is scientifically valid and what isn’t.
Therefore people who rely on the web for such diagnoses are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

The assumption the author needs in order to draw this conclusion is basically this: if people rely on any information that is not scientifically valid, they are likely to do themselves more harm than good. In other words, unless they rely only on scientifically valid information, they are likely to do themselves more harm than good. That is what correct answer choice (B) provides.

Let me know if this makes sense—thanks!

[rachue]

That does make sense. So basically we can just disregard pretty much the central part of the stimulus. It stinks how they add that excess info sometimes that you have to weed through. Anyway, thanks for your help!

[melissa27]

For this question, involving individuals trying to diagnose their own medical conditions can you please explain why B is the correct answer?

how does B allow the conclusion to even exist more-so than the other answer choices?

[Steve Stein]

People who search the Internet for their medical information in many cases cannot tell the difference between legitimate scientific information and “quackery.” A lot of the quackery, the author says, is more appealing to laymen because it is often written in more broadly accessible language than that you normally find in scientific journals. Therefore, the author asserts, those who count on the web exclusively for their medical diagnoses are likely to do themselves more harm than good. The new element that’s been introduced is the likelihood of doing themselves more harm than good; the author asserts when people rely on Internet-based self-diagnoses, they are likely to do themselves more harm than good, because they cannot tell what medical information is scientifically legitimate.

B is the right answer, because people who do rely on the Internet for self diagnoses cannot tell what is scientifically legitimate and what isn’t, so unless people rely exclusively on scientifically legitimate information (and don’t rely at all on anything other than legitimate info), they are, according to the author, likely to do themselves more harm than good.

This is a tricky correct answer choice, because it does not mention quackery at all. This is still the needed assumption however, because the hazard lay in the fact that people who rely on the Internet cannot tell what information is scientifically legitimate and what isn’t.

Let me know if that clears it up--thanks!

[melissa27]

Thanks! I now see why B is the correct answer, but I guess I am having difficulty seeing why E is wrong. Could you please explain why E does not work.

[Steve Stein]

Sure: Answer E says that the only way people can possibly harm themselves is by relying on quackery--there's no other way anyone could ever harm themselves. This is a much more broad assumption than required by the author’s argument, so it cannot be the right answer choice.

Let me know whether that's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Lina]

Hello, For LR Sect. 2, Question 11, I am checking to see if I negated these correctly to arrive to the correct ans choice:

B) People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good IF they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information

C) People who have sufficient medical knowledge to discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery will NOT do themselves harm if they rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions.

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Lina,

Thanks for your question--that one has some answer choices that are pretty tough to negate.
For answer choice B, the negated version would be as follows:

Even if people don't rely exclusively on scientifically valid information, people who self diagnose are not likely to do themselves more harm than good.

As for answer choice C, the negated version would be as follows:

People with sufficient scientific knowledge might do themselves more harm by relying on the web to diagnose themselves.

I hope this is helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve