LR Question 16 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some people see no harm in promoting a folk remedy…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify
CONCLUSION: It’s bad to promote folk remedies, even if those remedies have no effect.
REASONING: Using an ineffective remedy might stop people from seeking conventional treatments that would help them.
ANALYSIS: This argument is a bit more complex than most “principle/justify” questions. Normally the stimulus presents facts, and the answer says “those facts are bad”, connecting the facts to the moral judgement in the conclusion.
That’s still the case here, but the facts to criticize are not as clear. So let’s look at a timeline:
- People are seeking a remedy.
- They would pursue conventional remedies.
- However, someone promotes a folk remedy.
- The patient uses the ineffective folk remedy for years, and stops looking for a conventional remedy.
The stimulus says “are convinced to use” and “rather than”. This implies that people were convinced to use the folk remedy instead of the conventional remedy they would have pursued otherwise. So, it’s not a stretch to say that the person offering the folk remedy “interfered” with the search. It’s a legitimate, if less common, use of the word. This question is an example of a shift in terms that isn’t a shift in concepts.
If you doubt any of the definitions I used, check the dictionary. The oxford dictionary is best. Increasingly, LSAT questions are using less common but valid definitions of words in order to increase the difficulty of questions.
___________
- Using the remedy doesn’t cause harm – we’re talking about folk remedies that have no effect.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. The short version is that people normally would look for a (beneficial) conventional remedy, and pushing a folk remedy interferes with this process.
- Honesty is irrelevant. The argument is about whether promoting folk remedies causes harm. Lies aren’t inherently harmful.
- This talks about whether someone is responsible for harm. The question is about whether there was harm.
- We’re trying to prove that there was harm. “Consequences” isn’t automatically a negative word. It can refer to beneficial consequences too.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
(cont) — and either way, the answer refers to “interfering with someone doing something that would benefit them.” But the stimulus says nothing about a beneficial, helpful treatment being “interfered” with, i.e. the person is already using the beneficial treatment but then ceases it in favor of the useless treatment that is suggested to them. Instead it sort of says that after years of using something ineffecive, a person might finally try something helpful. Where is this initial interference with the person using a useful remedy referenced? That makes the answer seem even more wrong.
The use of “rather than” in the stimulus indicates that people are using folk remedies instead of (or to replace) conventional treatments.
The folk remedies are interfering with the useful remedy by providing an alternative; people who choose folk remedies are not choosing conventional remedies and as such are not receiving a benefit. It’s like if you go to the store to buy healthy food but see an ad for candy and buy it instead – the candy ad has interfered with your purchase of healthy food, even though you never actually began purchasing healthy food.
I almost picked the right answer, but when i read “Many people who are convinced to use an ineffective remedy continue with it for years rather than pursuing conventional treatments that would almost certainly help them.” — i don’t see how you have part 2. they would otherwise pursue conventional remedies.
If it said “rather than pursuing helpful conventional treatments that they almost certainly would have pursued otherwise” — then I feel like you can read your part 2. It seems like the stimulus was explicitly NOT stating that, but without the intervention of the snake oil treatment, that people would on their own pursue a conventional treatment.