LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: A smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Individuals cannot easily adopt such strategies [of exaggerating risks] unless a doctor or some other third party provides the warning.
REASONING: Many habits can be broken if the danger is exaggerated. But such strategies involve deception.
ANALYSIS: This argument is assuming that we can’t fool ourselves and that we therefore need a third party to fool us.
If we can lie to ourselves, then we might be able to exaggerate the danger of bad habits, and break them on our own.
___________
- This isn’t necessary as long as we believe doctors when they exaggerate the risks of smoking.
- This isn’t necessary as long as the technique of exaggeration can work on at least a few habits. The stimulus only claimed that that technique worked for many things.
- The argument would still be fine if exaggeration stopped working beyond a certain level. It only needs to work to a certain extent.
- CORRECT. If people can easily deceive themselves then they won’t need a doctor to try this strategy.
- The stimulus isn’t talking about whether the strategy is right. It’s talking about what is needed for the strategy to work.
Hey,
can’t agree with your reasoning regarding answer choice (A).
Smoking is actually only referred in the first sentence as context, and then it says similar strategies can be used to break “other habits” (=different from smoking).
The reason why (A) is wrong is that it is indeed not necessary that patients believe everything (=100%) doctors tell them, it is only necessary that, if the deception comes from a doctor or another third party, there is a chance that they adopt the warning more easily than if the deception comes from themselves.
I meant A in the sense of “as long as we believe doctor’s when it comes to the dangers of smoking [or other habits]”. It works then. I think we’re saying similar things.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.