Some people see no harm

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match6% picked this

   One should not promote a remedy if one believes that using that remedy

   The conclusion this rule is set up for is, "Therefore, you shouldn't promote folk remedies", which is very different from proving "Therefore, promoting folk remedies is harmful". Someone can prove to me that playing football is harmful but still not be saying to be "you shouldn't play football". Two separate issues. Additionally, the trigger of this rule doesn't match the premise. We're never told that the people promoting folk remedies believe that using those remedies will cause harm.

   6%
2. B

   Correct61% picked this

   It is harmful to interfere with someone doing something that is likely to

   Why this is right

   This is structurally appealing because it says, "If you're doing ____ , it's harmful". Is promoting folk remedies "interfering with someone doing something that is likely to benefit them"? Yeah, we could make that language work. If we convince people to use folk remedies, they will often use them for years instead of pursuing conventional treatments that would likely (almost certainly) help them.

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

   61%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   To convince people of something for which one knows there is no evidence is

   This rule is set up to prove "Thus, doing this thing is dishonest", but we're looking to support a conclusion that says "Thus, doing this thing is harmful".

   5%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match9% picked this

   A person is responsible for harm he or she does to someone even if the

   This principle helps one to conclude that "Person X is responsible for the harm, even if the harm was done unintentionally". Can we apply this to promoting folk remedies? Is there unintentional harm done? Not as far as we know from the argument. The folk remedy has no effect, so it's not directly harmful. If we're thinking it's indirectly harmful because it's chasing people away from better treatments, well then we just made a big assumption of our own, and that assumption is exactly what this question is testing and what (B) is rewarding. This principle is trying to support an argument that sounds like, "Ted hurt Reggie's feelings, although Ted didn't mean to. Nonetheless, Ted is still responsible for hurting Reggie's feelings."

   9%
5. E

   Too Weak19% picked this

   A person who convinces someone to take a course of action is in part responsible for the

   We want to try to support / prove the idea that promoting a folk remedy causes harm. This rule doesn't even mention harm, so it is very unappealing at first glance. Applying this rule to promoters of folk remedies, we would get that the promoter is in part responsible for the fact that the person they convinced would probably avoid conventional treatments for years. Okay ... but was that harm? We might think so in our own minds, but this answer nor the paragraph has ever established that steering someone away from helpful treatments constitutes harm.

   19%