PT63.S3.Q11 - Web Medical Info

hotranchsauce

5 star NA question.

Is this a triple conclusion passage?

Looking for another opinion on this question regarding the stimulus. This passage strikes me as having a sub sub conclusion, as in 3 conclusions total. Do you see that as well? If not, please let me know.

I see:

Sub conclusion. [Because] Sub Sub conclusion, because sub sub conclusion premise. Thus, main conclusion.

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-11/

Ashley2018-1

I don't really see a triple conclusion. I only see one main conclusion, which is the last sentence. The argument is stating that because a lot of the info available to people who are trying to find medical information is mostly bs (quackery), that they are more likely to harm than help themselves...but that's assuming they are more likely to do so if the info isn't scientifically valid. If that wasn't the case, then the argument has no case.

RaphaelP

I don't see an argument nested in that many layers, no. Here's our argument/support structure (paraphrased for simplicity) -
1) People on the Internet don't know false info from true info
2) The false stuff is appealing because it's simple
3) Internet info will harm people

3 is supported by 1 and 2. This is a pretty straightforward A to B to C relationship, where A and B collectively support C. We know this because we can ask ourself why C is true - why is it true that Internet info will hurt people? That's because (i) people are bad at telling true info from false info; (ii) false info is appealing.

Put differently, I don't even see a subconclusion here. I actually just see a conclusion (Internet info will harm people) supported by premise 1 that people are bad at distinguishing true and false info and premise 2 that false info is appealing.

I know you didn't ask for the answer, but for those interested - it's B because we have nothing connecting our premises to "harm" - that's a dangling component here. We need quackery --> harm. On my first pass, I'm ignoring any choice not about "harm," which leaves us with just B C and E.

C is about "no harm" so it's wrong.

E is a strange necessary relationship ("only if") about quackery being the only way to cause harm - that doesn't help us (who cares if quackery is the only way to cause harm - I want to know if it's even able to cause harm - this is basically harm --> quackery which is backwards).

B gives us a nice, snug sufficiency relationship that quackery will cause harm. This is perfect.