Efraim: The popular press continually advises people to avoid various

Question

Efraim: The popular press continually advises people to avoid various health risks. Yet by seeking to avoid health risks, people inevitably become anxious, and anxiety, in turn, poses a major health risk. Thus, paradoxical as it seems, simply disregarding journalists' advice about reducing health risks is bound to pose less of a health risk than does trying to follow any such advice.

Felicity: But history shows that you are wrong. It was articles in the popular press that made people aware of the health risks posed by smoking cigarettes. Many people stopped smoking in response, and they led longer and healthier lives than they would have otherwise.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which Efraim's argument depends?

(A) A significant proportion of the people who, following journalists' advice, seek to avoid specific health risks cannot avoid those risks completely.

(B) Journalists who advise people to avoid various health risks render their advice in needlessly alarming language.

(C) The popular press is not unanimous in its recommendations to people wishing to avoid various health risks.

(D) The anxiety, if any, produced by disregarding journalists' advice to avoid health risks is less than that produced by attempting to heed this advice.

(E) Most strategies for dealing with sources of personal anxiety are themselves anxiety inducing.

VibhuAnurag · Answer

The answer is D.

Efraim’s argument is:
Journalists advise people to avoid health risks. Trying to avoid those risks creates anxiety. Anxiety itself is a major health risk. Therefore, ignoring journalists’ advice is less risky than trying to follow it. So the key hidden assumption is:
Ignoring the advice must create less anxiety than following the advice.
If ignoring the advice creates equal or greater anxiety, Efraim’s conclusion does not work.

Option (A): 
 Original:
A significant proportion of the people who, following journalists' advice, seek to avoid specific health risks cannot avoid those risks completely. 
 Negation:
A significant proportion of people who follow journalists’ advice can avoid those risks completely. 
 This does not destroy Efraim’s argument. 
 Even if people can avoid the specific risks completely, Efraim could still argue that the process of trying to avoid those risks creates anxiety, and that this anxiety itself is a major health risk. 
 So the argument does not depend on whether people successfully avoid the original health risks.

Option (B): 
 Original:
Journalists who advise people to avoid various health risks render their advice in needlessly alarming language. 
 Negation:
Journalists who advise people to avoid various health risks do not render their advice in needlessly alarming language. 
 This does not seriously weaken the conclusion. 
 Efraim does not argue that people become anxious because the language is dramatic or alarming. His point is broader: trying to avoid health risks makes people anxious. 
 Even calmly worded advice could still create anxiety if people start worrying about risks and trying to avoid them. 
 So this is not a necessary assumption.

Option (C): 
 Original:
The popular press is not unanimous in its recommendations to people wishing to avoid various health risks. 
 Negation:
The popular press is unanimous in its recommendations to people wishing to avoid various health risks. 
 This does not weaken Efraim’s argument. 
 Whether journalists agree or disagree with each other is not central to the reasoning. Efraim’s claim is that following health-risk advice creates anxiety, and anxiety is harmful. 
 Even if all journalists gave the same advice, Efraim could still claim that trying to follow that advice creates anxiety. 
 So the argument does not depend on lack of unanimity.

Option (D):
Original:
The anxiety, if any, produced by disregarding journalists' advice to avoid health risks is less than that produced by attempting to heed this advice.
Negation:
The anxiety produced by disregarding journalists’ advice is not less than the anxiety produced by attempting to heed this advice.
In other words, ignoring the advice creates equal or greater anxiety than trying to follow it.
This directly weakens Efraim’s conclusion.
Efraim concludes that ignoring the advice is less risky than following it. But his reason is that following the advice creates anxiety. If ignoring the advice also creates just as much anxiety, or even more anxiety, then ignoring the advice is not clearly safer.
For example, a person who ignores medical advice may become anxious because they know they are neglecting a possible danger. In that case, ignoring advice may not reduce anxiety at all.
So once D is negated, the central comparison in Efraim’s argument collapses.
Therefore, D is required by the argument.

Option (E): 
 Original:
Most strategies for dealing with sources of personal anxiety are themselves anxiety inducing. 
 Negation:
Most strategies for dealing with sources of personal anxiety are not themselves anxiety inducing. 
 This does not affect Efraim’s argument. 
 Efraim is not discussing strategies for managing anxiety. He is comparing two choices: 
 1. Trying to follow journalists’ advice 
 2. Disregarding journalists’ advice 
 Whether anxiety-management strategies create anxiety is outside the scope of the argument. 
 So this is not a necessary assumption.

guddo · Answer

Efraim: The popular press continually advises people to avoid various health risks. Yet by seeking to avoid health risks, people inevitably become anxious, and anxiety, in turn, poses a major health risk. Thus, paradoxical as it seems, simply disregarding journalists' advice about reducing health risks is bound to pose less of a health risk than does trying to follow any such advice. 
 
Felicity: But history shows that you are wrong. It was articles in the popular press that made people aware of the health risks posed by smoking cigarettes. Many people stopped smoking in response, and they led longer and healthier lives than they would have otherwise.
 
 Which one of the following is an assumption on which Efraim's argument depends?

Efraim argues that following health-risk advice creates anxiety, and anxiety itself is dangerous. So he concludes that ignoring the advice is less risky than following it.  The argument assumes  that ignoring the advice does not create an equal or greater health risk through  anxiety or worry .

(A) A significant proportion of the people who, following journalists' advice, seek to avoid specific health risks cannot avoid those risks completely.

Wrong. Efraim’s argument does not depend on whether people can fully avoid the original risks. His focus is on the anxiety caused by trying.

(B) Journalists who advise people to avoid various health risks render their advice in needlessly alarming language.

Wrong. Efraim does not need the language to be needlessly alarming. He only claims that trying to avoid risks causes anxiety.

(C) The popular press is not unanimous in its recommendations to people wishing to avoid various health risks.

Wrong. Agreement or disagreement among journalists is irrelevant to Efraim’s reasoning.

(D) The anxiety, if any, produced by disregarding journalists' advice to avoid health risks is less than that produced by attempting to heed this advice.

Correct. If ignoring the advice caused as much or more anxiety than following it, Efraim could not claim that ignoring the advice is less risky. So this assumption is necessary.

(E) Most strategies for dealing with sources of personal anxiety are themselves anxiety inducing.

Wrong. The argument is about whether to follow health-risk advice, not about strategies for treating anxiety.

Answer: (D)

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
Efraim makes an argument for the conclusion that "disregarding journalists' advice about reducing health risks is bound to pose less of a health risk than does trying to follow any such advice." He presents two points as support for this conclusion. First, that by seeking to avoid health risks, people inevitably become anxious. And second that anxiety poses a major health risk.
Felicity responds by offering a counterexample to Efraim's conclusion: Many people stopped smoking because of journalists' advice and led longer and healthier lives as a result.

The Correct Answer:

D  In his argument, Efraim contends that when journalists warn the public about health risks, the health risks posed by anxiety over these warnings is greater than that posed by the health risks that the journalists advise us to avoid. But what if disregarding journalists' advice also produces anxiety? And what if that anxiety is at least as great as the anxiety that results from seeking to avoid those risks? Then as far as the health risk posed by anxiety is concerned, it is pretty much the same whether or not you disregard the journalists' advice. But heeding the advice can presumably reduce the health risk posed by things other than anxiety, such as smoking or poor diet. So heeding the advice would result in lowering health risks overall whereas disregarding it would not. Therefore if (D) is false, the case for the conclusion of Efraim's argument is very weak at best. Efraim's argument thus depends on assuming (D).

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

A  Efraim's argument, essentially, is that in trying to avoid a health risk you inevitably create another health risk (in the form of anxiety) that is bigger than the health risk you are trying to avoid. (A) says that you might not be able to eliminate all of the health risk you are trying to avoid by following the journalists' advice. So if (A) is true, it does make Efraim's argument stronger. However, all his argument requires is that any reduction in health risks achieved by following journalists' advice is outweighed by the health risk posed by the anxiety that results from following that advice. Thus, Efraim's argument does not depend on assuming (A).

B  Efraim's argument does not depend on assuming (B). Suppose that journalists do not use needlessly alarming language. Efraim's argument would still carry weight in this case, because even if journalists report health risks in neutral language, trying to avoid those risks could still produce anxiety in people and subject them to health risks as a result.

C  Efraim's argument takes it for granted that some journalists recommend that people avoid at least some health risks. Nothing, however, depends on whether the popular press is unanimous in its recommendations about health risks. Thus, Efraim's ' argument does not depend on assuming (C).

E  According to Efraim's argument, in attempting to avoid health risks, you are, at best, trading a smaller health risk for a larger one that comes in the form of anxiety. If there were strategies for eliminating personal anxiety that do not themselves cause additional personal anxiety and are  effective , this would undermine the argument. But we are given no reason to believe that there are any effective strategies for eliminating personal anxiety. So even if most strategies for dealing with personal anxiety do not themselves induce anxiety, Efraim's argument is not undermined. Thus his argument does not depend on assuming (E).

Efraim: The popular press continually advises people to avoid various

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Efraim: The popular press continually advises people to avoid various

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards