If you haven't done a wrong answer journal, I encourage you to make one ASAP! Helped me avoid falling for the oldest trick in the book after doing it multiple times on previous questions.
@JalenWilson I’ve seen the suggestion to keep a 'wrong answer journal' quite often, but I’m looking for the most effective way to structure one. Should I be documenting every incorrect choice I make, or should I focus specifically on the reasoning behind why those answers were wrong and how to avoid that logic in the future?
@RugensJeanBaptiste The reasoning and what you learned from getting the answer wrong has benefited me the most. It's almost like teaching yourself which makes it helpful
Not sure if I'm actually getting better with assumption questions, or the questions are made easier toward the end that I FEEL like I'm getting better.
JY’s explanation for PT133.S3.Q11 is missing something important.
He says P1 is phenomenon and P2 is explanation of the phenomenon, and, importantly, that it is best to ignore P2 in order to see how the argument functions. This is not the case. Both provide direct support for the argument. Further, recognizing the function of P2 is crucial to understanding why an answer as strong as (B) is still a necessary assumption.
Lets start with evaluating a weaker version of (B). Lets say the relevant subset of people don’t necessarily need to EXCLUSIVELY rely on valid information, but perhaps need to rely on valid information simply more than quackery. If that works with the argument, then (B) is not necessary. Suppose we accept JY’s analysis of the argument, that we can ignore P2. People can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery. So, it is LIKELY (as in > 50%) they will do more harm than good when relying on it. This is a weak argument, but that’s fine. Maybe the hidden assumption is that there is just more quackery out there than valid info? Ok, if that’s the case, does our weaker version of (B) hold up? YES! It does. If, despite the overall balance of articles on the internet, you happened to rely on 9 valid articles and 1 quack article, you would probably be OK, but if we adjust the balance, relying on more quack articles than valid articles would probably be an issue. Now lets integrate P2 into the argument and see how the necessity for EXCLUSIVELY valid info emerges. P2 says that, it’s not just that people can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery, they can’t parse the valid info! It’s too dense, and if they come across it, they can’t apply it. Quackery, on the other hand, is easy to parse (and presumably easier to apply). THAT is why it’s necessary to rely EXCLUSIVELY on scientifically valid information, and why (B) is the right answer. Overall, the argument is (P1) people can't filter out quack content, (P2) people can't parse valid content, (C) relying on this content causes more harm than good, with (NA) unless they exclusively rely on valid content
@dh2303 see this is where my brain just can't process the info. i got this question right because it felt right, but I can't fully wrap my head around why.
So there are premise that are there to just support the rule premise and they don't do much else. Like the second premise here and some that we have seen in the past? Is this an actual thing or am I just connecting dots that don't exist??
@HilarySackor Try adding it is not true in front of the correct answer choice.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT /scientifically valid info-> likely to do more harm than good
Then what is the point of having scientifically valid info? Why is quackery bad? The entire stim falls apart and all the premises are rendered moot.
@meepmeep same here. after I read the stimulus I try and find the gap in my head before I look at the answers. A was the assumption I came up with IN MY HEAD before I even looked at it. Ugh.
the "rely exclusively on scientifically valid information." is why i didn't choose b .. i literally was like thats so strong, that doesn't have to be true .. there are other valid forms of info that would do them well. Can someone explain ?
@ANP I got the last 2 questions, including this one right as well. Underline the necessary predicates in the stimulus to show you what you need to focus on
B: People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are : Necessary (likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.)
In the stimulus it says in the conclusion the same thing. For me the rest of the options canceled themselves at staying off the topic for each other the necessary conditions within the stimulus. There are several NAs in the stimulus—
…can’t discriminate between valid I. And quackery
…it’s usually written more clearly than scientific papers
…. Are likely to do themselves more harm than good.
if these are all the necessary conditions… what can you estimate from each other answers given?
Clearly not A or E
It can’t be C because is talks about an outside subset ( those who know medic info)
D tripped me up but I focused on the essence of what was necessary for the whole argument. D was referencing the information- which is valid— but not what we are looking for which is the whole point “ more harm than good”
Hence is why I chose B…hopefully seeing my thoughts process helped
why the hell would they include a level 5 question in such early stages? it is better to start with something that is easy comprehensable for this stage!!!!.
somebody, please, for the love of god explain the difference between b and e for me. i understand E is the sufficient-necessary confusion thingy BUT I DO NOT GET HOW AT ALL PLZ HELP ME
@Nickgigs The conclusion of the argument is saying "people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good."
so lets say rely on the web --(likely)-> more harm than good
E is saying, "People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information."
Only if is what makes it a necessary indicator, so it would be:
more harm than good --> rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information. (or in other words rely on web)
Does this help?
Essentially the actual conclusion is A is likely for B
@Nickgigs dont feel defeated. NA questions are hard and this is something completely new it takes time to see it. What i did was go through each question and i asked myself if this had to be true for it to work. I was stuck between e and b and i negated it. when i negated e i essentially understood that if they don't rely on quackery it does more harm than good and that doesn't make any sense at all. When I negated B the argument fell apart if people could rely on non-scientific info and still not harm themselves, the author’s prediction wouldn’t make sense. That showed B was the necessary assumption
So I see a clear gap between people who browse the web for medical information and those who have no medical background. is bridging then another necessary assumption? And if so, does that mean there are two necessary assumption needed for the argument to work?
obviously that bridge wasn't in the answer choices, but will there ever be multiple necessary assumptions? if so how do we choose one over the other?
I still don't understand the difference between NA and SA so far. It feels like all of the questions so far have been ones where the right answer could be both. I would have went with B, but I assumed that it seemed like "too good" of an answer choice for the question, making it a SA. I thought one of the main things we we're told was that incorrect AC's for NA questions will bait us into making SA's (especially since this comes right after the SA curriculum part), so I was looking for something that it seemed that the stimulus overlooked as a key part of the conclusion and went with AC A. I understand how A could be wrong since people browsing in general is the superset, but I'm still confused on the difference between SA and NA questions so far, hopefully it will make more sense down the line.
@jackghenriquez1 I can totally relate! I also find it tricky to differentiate NA and SA questions, especially since a correct answer for an NA question can sometimes be sufficient. The negation test offers a helpful illustration for this example.
Let's try to negate the correct answer (B).
B) says: People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information
Let's say B was NOT true: That would mean that someone who attempts to diagnose their medical condition and doesn't rely exclusively on scientifically valid information is NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good. That's extremely damaging for the argument. The conclusion of the argument was that people who rely on the web to diagnose themselves are likely to do themselves more harm than good because they can't tell the difference between scientifically valid information and quackery. By negating B), we're totally undermining the conclusion. The fact that people can't tell science from nonsense because no longer puts them at risk of harm.
This negation test shows how we really need B) to be true for the argument to work, and thus indicates that B) is a necessary assumption.
In contrast, let's say A) wasn't true.
People who browse the web for medical information aren't typically trying to diagnose their medical conditions. See how that doesn't destroy the argument? It's still possible that people sometimes browse the web for medical info to try to diagnose themselves. So we don't need A) to be true for the conclusion to be possible.
I think (although I'm not 100% sure) another correct answer could have been something like this:
At least some of the quackery that people encounter online when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions offers harmful advice.
If we negate the above, then we would have: None of the quackery people encounter online offers harmful advice. Well now it's pretty hard to see how relying on the web for a diagnosis could lead to more harm than good.
I have a question about why AC B is both necessary and sufficient. It seems really strong, in that if someone was using 99% scientific info and 1% quackery, that would be likely doing more harm than good. But is it necessary because the argument itself is making a really strong claim, which requires a really strong necessary condition? Is that why an AC is both necessary and sufficient, because the argument requires such a leap such that the sufficient condition is often the necessary one?
Tutor Response
As you've probably noticed, for a good number of NA questions, the answer would be exactly the same if the question stem were asking for an SA. Rather than thinking of these as questions where the argument is making a particularly strong claim, I would think of them as arguments that are almost valid. These are arguments that are missing just one assumption—if there were just one more premise, then they would be valid. In that case, the sufficient assumption and the necessary assumption are the same: just one more assumption would be sufficient to make the argument valid, and that same assumption is also necessary.
In terms of this particular question, let's test out (B) using the Negation Test:
"People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information."
This gets us: "/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> /likely to do more harm than good."
The stimulus had given us this argument:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
So the negation of (B) would break the argument entirely! It would make it impossible to form a bridge between the condition we know to be true (people don't typically rely exclusively on scientifically valid info) and the condition we're trying to conclude is true (using the web to self-diagnose is likely to do more harm than good). That's why (B) is a necessary assumption.
It's also a sufficient assumption, because it happens to close the only gap in the argument! It gives us:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> likely to do more harm than good
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
In a relatively simple argument structure with just one major gap, NA questions often look exactly like PSA or SA questions. But we don't lump them in with PSA or SA completely, because most NA questions don't actually get us all the way to a valid argument. It's good practice to recognize when they do, though!
i ruled B out immediately when I read "exclusively" :( Does the argument really insist on absolutely 0 quackery? not even a little? you will do yourself more harm than good if you diagnose your medical condition by relying on 95% scientific papers and 5% quackery?
I'm getting these right but I still don't have a good mental framework. there's usually a guiding sentence or rule that I'll say in my head as I approach questions but I can't figure one out for NA - anyone have something simple they use? #help
Im in the exact same boat! I just started these an hour ish ago and right now what's been helping me discern between answer choices is by asking "what else/who else is missing" from this answer? If there are ANY alternate possibilities, then I know it's at least not necessary and that's all you need to eliminate and move on. (scroll down to skip example and get to main advice) Eg:
When evaluating this question, Answer choice D says "many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it's clearly written."
Who else is missing? Many ppl is not everyone. What about those that don't assume? What do they do? So this answer choice doesn't apply to the WHOLE argument. It doesn't include everyone and everything. So it's definitely not necessary. It might support, sure, but we need to look for something that includes the entire argument no matter what.Don't even bother wasting your time with the whole lawgic stuff and transforming the "unless" part of the sentence (as the instructor did above) because you've already figured out this is not a necessary assumption if you've realized it.
Answer choice A: People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.
What else is missing: What about people who DO NOT TYPICALLY browse the web for their own diagnosis medical information? Maybe they're doing it for someone else. Or maybe..? or what if..? or who else..? Blah blah blah. The point is, there's room for OTHER POSSIBILITES. OTHER QUESTIONS. Remember you can be in LA or NYC, yet for either one you MUST BE in the USA. Sufficient vs necessary assumptions.
Are these answers choices just the states or is it the country?? (sufficient vs. necessary 101)
To sum: interrogate every answer choice if you are doing process of elimination and really ask yourself, "what else"? Test each answer choice against what you know from the argument - if there's room for alternate possibilities, you know it's not your right answer!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
139 comments
If you haven't done a wrong answer journal, I encourage you to make one ASAP! Helped me avoid falling for the oldest trick in the book after doing it multiple times on previous questions.
@JalenWilson I’ve seen the suggestion to keep a 'wrong answer journal' quite often, but I’m looking for the most effective way to structure one. Should I be documenting every incorrect choice I make, or should I focus specifically on the reasoning behind why those answers were wrong and how to avoid that logic in the future?
@RugensJeanBaptiste The reasoning and what you learned from getting the answer wrong has benefited me the most. It's almost like teaching yourself which makes it helpful
Ah yes, if it ain't the good ole' OLDEST MISTAKE IN THE BOOK.
Not sure if I'm actually getting better with assumption questions, or the questions are made easier toward the end that I FEEL like I'm getting better.
OHH NOOO, this one got me :( I fell for E and then A
JY’s explanation for PT133.S3.Q11 is missing something important.
He says P1 is phenomenon and P2 is explanation of the phenomenon, and, importantly, that it is best to ignore P2 in order to see how the argument functions. This is not the case. Both provide direct support for the argument. Further, recognizing the function of P2 is crucial to understanding why an answer as strong as (B) is still a necessary assumption.
Lets start with evaluating a weaker version of (B). Lets say the relevant subset of people don’t necessarily need to EXCLUSIVELY rely on valid information, but perhaps need to rely on valid information simply more than quackery. If that works with the argument, then (B) is not necessary. Suppose we accept JY’s analysis of the argument, that we can ignore P2. People can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery. So, it is LIKELY (as in > 50%) they will do more harm than good when relying on it. This is a weak argument, but that’s fine. Maybe the hidden assumption is that there is just more quackery out there than valid info? Ok, if that’s the case, does our weaker version of (B) hold up? YES! It does. If, despite the overall balance of articles on the internet, you happened to rely on 9 valid articles and 1 quack article, you would probably be OK, but if we adjust the balance, relying on more quack articles than valid articles would probably be an issue. Now lets integrate P2 into the argument and see how the necessity for EXCLUSIVELY valid info emerges. P2 says that, it’s not just that people can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery, they can’t parse the valid info! It’s too dense, and if they come across it, they can’t apply it. Quackery, on the other hand, is easy to parse (and presumably easier to apply). THAT is why it’s necessary to rely EXCLUSIVELY on scientifically valid information, and why (B) is the right answer. Overall, the argument is (P1) people can't filter out quack content, (P2) people can't parse valid content, (C) relying on this content causes more harm than good, with (NA) unless they exclusively rely on valid content
@dh2303 see this is where my brain just can't process the info. i got this question right because it felt right, but I can't fully wrap my head around why.
man i was so sure about A and maybe B and then chose E in BR anyway my goodness that one hurts
@EmeryBeals I thought the exact same thing lol
So I got the 2 star question wrong but I get this one right and with time to spare
So there are premise that are there to just support the rule premise and they don't do much else. Like the second premise here and some that we have seen in the past? Is this an actual thing or am I just connecting dots that don't exist??
The negation technique does not work for me because even if I negate something, I can still explain why the stimulus cannot operate without it.
The issue with using the Negation technique is being able to prove why the stim CAN operate with wrong answer choices, and can't with right answers
Can someone simplify why this is necessary. I feel as though the explanation isn't simplifying this enough.
@HilarySackor Try adding it is not true in front of the correct answer choice.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT /scientifically valid info-> likely to do more harm than good
Then what is the point of having scientifically valid info? Why is quackery bad? The entire stim falls apart and all the premises are rendered moot.
I really fell for A and feel like I would choose that answer choice again still even after explanation :/
@meepmeep same here. after I read the stimulus I try and find the gap in my head before I look at the answers. A was the assumption I came up with IN MY HEAD before I even looked at it. Ugh.
man i gotta read better
God is good. 3 correct in a row
the "rely exclusively on scientifically valid information." is why i didn't choose b .. i literally was like thats so strong, that doesn't have to be true .. there are other valid forms of info that would do them well. Can someone explain ?
@ANP I got the last 2 questions, including this one right as well. Underline the necessary predicates in the stimulus to show you what you need to focus on
B: People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are : Necessary (likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.)
In the stimulus it says in the conclusion the same thing. For me the rest of the options canceled themselves at staying off the topic for each other the necessary conditions within the stimulus. There are several NAs in the stimulus—
…can’t discriminate between valid I. And quackery
…it’s usually written more clearly than scientific papers
…. Are likely to do themselves more harm than good.
if these are all the necessary conditions… what can you estimate from each other answers given?
Clearly not A or E
It can’t be C because is talks about an outside subset ( those who know medic info)
D tripped me up but I focused on the essence of what was necessary for the whole argument. D was referencing the information- which is valid— but not what we are looking for which is the whole point “ more harm than good”
Hence is why I chose B…hopefully seeing my thoughts process helped
how do they justify jumping from a level 2 to a level 5 question so early on /: they really know how to break my fleeting confidence
why the hell would they include a level 5 question in such early stages? it is better to start with something that is easy comprehensable for this stage!!!!.
I didn't take my Concerta today so this question is really breaking my brain
somebody, please, for the love of god explain the difference between b and e for me. i understand E is the sufficient-necessary confusion thingy BUT I DO NOT GET HOW AT ALL PLZ HELP ME
@Nickgigs like what would the negated version of e be. i am so lost i feel so defeated ugh ew
@Nickgigs The conclusion of the argument is saying "people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good."
so lets say rely on the web --(likely)-> more harm than good
E is saying, "People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information."
Only if is what makes it a necessary indicator, so it would be:
more harm than good --> rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information. (or in other words rely on web)
Does this help?
Essentially the actual conclusion is A is likely for B
E) is saying, B --> A
@ArianNoori no :(
@Nickgigs dont feel defeated. NA questions are hard and this is something completely new it takes time to see it. What i did was go through each question and i asked myself if this had to be true for it to work. I was stuck between e and b and i negated it. when i negated e i essentially understood that if they don't rely on quackery it does more harm than good and that doesn't make any sense at all. When I negated B the argument fell apart if people could rely on non-scientific info and still not harm themselves, the author’s prediction wouldn’t make sense. That showed B was the necessary assumption
20 MINUTES LATER AND I GOT IT RIGHT FIRST TRY (let me have this please i am awful at this section)
So I see a clear gap between people who browse the web for medical information and those who have no medical background. is bridging then another necessary assumption? And if so, does that mean there are two necessary assumption needed for the argument to work?
obviously that bridge wasn't in the answer choices, but will there ever be multiple necessary assumptions? if so how do we choose one over the other?
#help
I still don't understand the difference between NA and SA so far. It feels like all of the questions so far have been ones where the right answer could be both. I would have went with B, but I assumed that it seemed like "too good" of an answer choice for the question, making it a SA. I thought one of the main things we we're told was that incorrect AC's for NA questions will bait us into making SA's (especially since this comes right after the SA curriculum part), so I was looking for something that it seemed that the stimulus overlooked as a key part of the conclusion and went with AC A. I understand how A could be wrong since people browsing in general is the superset, but I'm still confused on the difference between SA and NA questions so far, hopefully it will make more sense down the line.
@jackghenriquez1 I can totally relate! I also find it tricky to differentiate NA and SA questions, especially since a correct answer for an NA question can sometimes be sufficient. The negation test offers a helpful illustration for this example.
Let's try to negate the correct answer (B).
B) says: People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information
Let's say B was NOT true: That would mean that someone who attempts to diagnose their medical condition and doesn't rely exclusively on scientifically valid information is NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good. That's extremely damaging for the argument. The conclusion of the argument was that people who rely on the web to diagnose themselves are likely to do themselves more harm than good because they can't tell the difference between scientifically valid information and quackery. By negating B), we're totally undermining the conclusion. The fact that people can't tell science from nonsense because no longer puts them at risk of harm.
This negation test shows how we really need B) to be true for the argument to work, and thus indicates that B) is a necessary assumption.
In contrast, let's say A) wasn't true.
People who browse the web for medical information aren't typically trying to diagnose their medical conditions. See how that doesn't destroy the argument? It's still possible that people sometimes browse the web for medical info to try to diagnose themselves. So we don't need A) to be true for the conclusion to be possible.
I think (although I'm not 100% sure) another correct answer could have been something like this:
At least some of the quackery that people encounter online when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions offers harmful advice.
If we negate the above, then we would have: None of the quackery people encounter online offers harmful advice. Well now it's pretty hard to see how relying on the web for a diagnosis could lead to more harm than good.
@AudreyGilmour *ignore the "because" in the 13th line
@AudreyGilmour This helped, I appreciate you explaining that.
Student Question
I have a question about why AC B is both necessary and sufficient. It seems really strong, in that if someone was using 99% scientific info and 1% quackery, that would be likely doing more harm than good. But is it necessary because the argument itself is making a really strong claim, which requires a really strong necessary condition? Is that why an AC is both necessary and sufficient, because the argument requires such a leap such that the sufficient condition is often the necessary one?
Tutor Response
As you've probably noticed, for a good number of NA questions, the answer would be exactly the same if the question stem were asking for an SA. Rather than thinking of these as questions where the argument is making a particularly strong claim, I would think of them as arguments that are almost valid. These are arguments that are missing just one assumption—if there were just one more premise, then they would be valid. In that case, the sufficient assumption and the necessary assumption are the same: just one more assumption would be sufficient to make the argument valid, and that same assumption is also necessary.
In terms of this particular question, let's test out (B) using the Negation Test:
"People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information."
This gets us: "/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> /likely to do more harm than good."
The stimulus had given us this argument:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
So the negation of (B) would break the argument entirely! It would make it impossible to form a bridge between the condition we know to be true (people don't typically rely exclusively on scientifically valid info) and the condition we're trying to conclude is true (using the web to self-diagnose is likely to do more harm than good). That's why (B) is a necessary assumption.
It's also a sufficient assumption, because it happens to close the only gap in the argument! It gives us:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> likely to do more harm than good
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
In a relatively simple argument structure with just one major gap, NA questions often look exactly like PSA or SA questions. But we don't lump them in with PSA or SA completely, because most NA questions don't actually get us all the way to a valid argument. It's good practice to recognize when they do, though!
i ruled B out immediately when I read "exclusively" :( Does the argument really insist on absolutely 0 quackery? not even a little? you will do yourself more harm than good if you diagnose your medical condition by relying on 95% scientific papers and 5% quackery?
@annnnna I did the same! I thought "exclusively" was too strong of a word when the stimulus doesn't talk about portions to a significant extent.
Holy crap. I got this right by using the negation test! It works!
I'm getting these right but I still don't have a good mental framework. there's usually a guiding sentence or rule that I'll say in my head as I approach questions but I can't figure one out for NA - anyone have something simple they use? #help
Im in the exact same boat! I just started these an hour ish ago and right now what's been helping me discern between answer choices is by asking "what else/who else is missing" from this answer? If there are ANY alternate possibilities, then I know it's at least not necessary and that's all you need to eliminate and move on. (scroll down to skip example and get to main advice) Eg:
When evaluating this question, Answer choice D says "many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it's clearly written."
Who else is missing? Many ppl is not everyone. What about those that don't assume? What do they do? So this answer choice doesn't apply to the WHOLE argument. It doesn't include everyone and everything. So it's definitely not necessary. It might support, sure, but we need to look for something that includes the entire argument no matter what. Don't even bother wasting your time with the whole lawgic stuff and transforming the "unless" part of the sentence (as the instructor did above) because you've already figured out this is not a necessary assumption if you've realized it.
Answer choice A: People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.
What else is missing: What about people who DO NOT TYPICALLY browse the web for their own diagnosis medical information? Maybe they're doing it for someone else. Or maybe..? or what if..? or who else..? Blah blah blah. The point is, there's room for OTHER POSSIBILITES. OTHER QUESTIONS. Remember you can be in LA or NYC, yet for either one you MUST BE in the USA. Sufficient vs necessary assumptions.
Are these answers choices just the states or is it the country?? (sufficient vs. necessary 101)
To sum: interrogate every answer choice if you are doing process of elimination and really ask yourself, "what else"? Test each answer choice against what you know from the argument - if there's room for alternate possibilities, you know it's not your right answer!
I hope this helps :))) Good luck everyone
this is super helpful thank you!!
Just added this to my notes, thank you so much for posting this!