#13 - "Addiction" has been defined as "dependence on and

[lolaSur]

Hi! I just would like to confirm that my analysis is correct. The stimulus states that “the definition of addiction included two things “dependance and abuse.”

Conclusion: the definition of addiction is incorrect
Because: cancer patients are dependent on drugs
Also because: some other people abuse drugs but are not dependent on the drugs

The definition of addiction is incorrect because (assumption:) there are people who are addicted and who only meet one of the requirements of the definition “dependability or abuse”

Cancer patients meet one requirement: they are dependent on the drug and since two things are not needed because the original definition of “addicted” is incorrect according to the conclusion, the assumption is that cancer patients are addicted. If cancer patients are not addicted, then the argument that they are dependent on the drug has no weight on whether the definition of “addiction” which requires dependability AND abuse is incorrect

I don’t see how the argument would fall apart if I negate answer C

Thank you!

[James Finch]

Hi Lola,

This is a tough question that may be easier to look at in broader strokes. The conclusion here is all about addiction and how just because you can have one of the two necessary conditions for addiction without the other, somehow they aren't both necessary. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the "and" is actually an "or" and that dependency or abuse are alone synonymous with addiction.

The question stem is about the cancer patients, who are dependent on but not abusing morphine, so we have to tie the dependency of the cancer patients to being addicted in spite of the fact that the stimulus states that this isn't abuse. Without assuming that these cancer patients are addicted to morphine, the argument doesn't make any sense, as both abuse and dependency would still be necessary and the cancer patient example wouldn't be relevant (as abuse is explicitly ruled out). (C) is saying exactly this, making it correct.

I hope this helps, this a very difficult question to explain clearly.

[lolaSur]

In broader strokes: That the definition of "addiction" requires dependence AND abuse is wrong because sometimes those two things do not go hand in hand but that doesn't mean that addiction is not present. For example, in cancer patients only one thing is present. For this analysis to work, cancer patients have to be considered "addicted" because cancer patients serve as the example of how people do not need dependence AND abuse for someone to be addicted.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Lola!

Your analysis is correct. Negating answer choice (C) doesn't make the argument fall apart, but it does make the example of the cancer patients no longer relevant to the argument. And that's actually what the question stem asks us: "The relevance of the example of the cancer patients to the argument depends on the assumption that...". If the cancer patients who are dependent on morphine are not addicted to it, then that example no longer has any relevance in this argument about whether the definition of addiction should require both dependence and abuse.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[lolaSur]

Thank you so much, Kelsea! I was approaching this question as a general assumption question on which an entire argument depends. I didn't realize what it meant that this question stem asked for an assumption specific to the relevance of the evidence of cancer patients until I read your comment.

When negating the correct answer, the specified example of cancer patients becomes irrelevant, but the entire argument doesn't fall apart. Thank you!