A smoker trying to quit

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: tend to / whatever15% picked this

   People tend to believe whatever doctors

   The argument is definitely insinuating that a person would find a greatly exaggerated warning of danger more compelling coming from a doctor than from themselves. But that's all the author has said on this matter. She hasn't committed herself to the idea that most people ("tend to" = most) believe whatever doctors tell them.

   15%
2. B

   Too Strong: most3% picked this

   Most of the techniques that help people quit smoking can also help people

   The argument is saying that this one technique (of greatly exaggerating danger) is a technique that helps to quit smoking as well as to break other habits. Technically, she doesn't say the same technique works for both, but similar strategies work for other habits. But that's just one technique that crosses over from smoking to other habits. The author hasn't come close to committing herself to the idea that more than 50% of techniques that work for smoking also work for other habits. (The word 'most' is wrong on Necessary Assumption and in Reading Comp, the vast majority of the time we see it.)

   3%
3. C

   Too Strong7% picked this

   The more the relevant danger is exaggerated, the more likely one is to

   Too Strong: the more X, the more Y This is a Volume Dial statement (the more X, the more Y), which is the strongest type of claim on LSAT, because it means that two things have a relationship that extends infinitely in both directions. The author thinks that if the danger of a habit is exaggerated by a third party, it could help someone break their habit. But the author doesn't commit to a precise mathematical idea that if you exaggerate the danger by 15% more, then you increase the likelihood of the habit breaking by 15%. This answer has nothing to do with the conclusion, either. The author isn't arguing that people will be likely to break a habit. We should be hearing about whether or not it's possible to carry off a strategy that involves deception without a third party.

   7%
4. D

   Correct71% picked this

   People generally do not find it easy to

   Why this is right

   We're always very receptive to answers with Ruling Out language (not/no) on Necessary Assumption, since so many correct answers are written in that style. These are the answers we especially should consider negating, to see whether they turn into objections. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Yo, author -- people generally do find it easy to deceive themselves"? Yes! This author is saying, "Since these strategies involve deception, it will be hard to adopt them unless you have someone else to provide you with the warning." But we can clap back and say, "Why do you need someone else? People usually find it easy to deceive themselves".

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%
5. E

   Too Strong: whenever5% picked this

   A doctor is justified in deceiving a patient whenever doing so is likely to make

   This argument only dealt with one instance in which a doctor would potentially be justified in deceiving a patient. The author didn't sign off on all such cases and say that whenever a deception would make the patient healthier, it's fine for a doctor to deceive the patient. The concept of "justified in deceiving a patient" is totally out of scope.

   5%