People who browse the web for medical information often cannot discrim

It should be E...

not sure why OA B....

can someone explain the difference between B and E. both are more or less similar to each other.

boil down to B and D, now I can clearly see B is the answer.
Fortunately, this is not gmat-style question b/c negate D is quite trouble-some, test takers can skip this question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me try to explain if still you have not got the answer-

For Assumption Question it is always advisable to go through negation method
so basicall we have to find the option if negated breaks the Conclusion

Premise - Much of the quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background because it is usually written more clearly than scientific papers

So basically Conclusion is followed by tHus, because here author thinks that Secientfic papers are good but Quackery is bad, so assumptyion should be that If you are taking teh help of Scientific paper it will not cause harm

Conclusion of this argument is -

Thus, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

No we will go to Option -

A. People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.

After Negation - People who browse the web for medical information typically do not do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.

This negation is not Breaking down the Conclusion but you are just createing your own negative conclusion because Conclusin is telling that there are soem people who rely on web to diognize medical condition

B. People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.

After Negation - People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves less harm unless they rely exclusively on Quavkery information (Opposite of Scientific)
Rest all other option can be discared.

B is better than E, b/c if people rely on both scientific, valid information and quackery, E can no longer be true.

Oh this one is tricky. I thought about B, C, & E. I think B is better.

A and D are obviously wrong. A and D simply define or repeat some of the details in the questions.

Premise #1: People can't tell which is better, scientifically valid info or quackery.
Premise #2: People with no sufficient medical background are more likely attracted to quackery because quackery is written more clearly.

Conclusion: People, who want to diagnose their medical problems, may do themselves more harm if they rely on web (quackery).

Proposed assumption #1: Information in web quackery more likely provides harmful medical advice.
Proposed assumption #2: People, who want to diagnose their medical problems, may not do themselves more harm if they rely on scientifically valid information.

And the most important logic of doing "assumption" questions - diverse answer to the assumption will either strengthen or weaken the argument.

B), The best. Basically this is my proposed assumption #2. If this is true then the argument will be strengthened. If this is not true (people will not do themselves more good than harm by relying exclusively on scientifically valid info), then the argument will be weakened. It's weakened because, in that case, if reliance on neither scientifically valid info nor quackery will do more good, the argument simply voids itself.

C), Tricky #1. The logic of picking this one may get you to the right answer in some other types of questions but not this question. The question mentions neither about people with sufficient medical knowledge nor about people with sufficient medical knowledge will be in a better position. To find the assumption we will have to make additional assumptions to make option C valid - this is usually a red flag in assumption questions.

D), Tricky #2. I always believe that "key words" in questions determine which answer is better. As soon as I got the key words, I eliminated this one. Check the question: Thus, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions [are likely] to do themselves more harm than good. So compared to using scientifically valid info, using quackery has a higher possibly of getting harm. This doesn't mean that using scientifically valid info won't get harm. Option D is too absolute.

Conclusion- People who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

A--Not required assumption - conclusion is just about people who rely on web to treat themselves .
B--Now on web there are two kinds of info present scientifically valid information and quackery(which appeal people who don't have medical knowledge)
Conclusion is saying about web and people in general (with knowledge/ without knowledge). So to make the conclusion strong we need to differentiate between people
We cannot say people in general , what about people who have medical knowledge and use web to treat themselves.
Hence B is required assumption.
C-- Just talking about people who have medical knowledge and the conclusion is about people in general
D--Clearly not required
E--"only if" is not required author is talking about necessary condition not sufficient condition

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja,
Can you suggest how to choose between option B and C ?

GMATNinja KarishmaB Not gonna lie, I got quite stomped by this one and ended up choosing between C and E.

Could you please uncover the reasoning behind this one? I would be very appreciative as I'm trying to sharpen the sophistication of my thinking in CR by practicing on LSATs.

Though (C) is appealing many, it is very clearly wrong using the concept of "scope." Option (C) is out of scope.

People browsing med info cannot distinguish between science and quackery (non scientific).
Quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background.

Conclusion: People diagnosing through web are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

We need an assumption - something that will plug the gap between the premises and the conclusion. Note that the premises do not even mention harm so the assumption will likely relate to that.

(A) People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.

Not correct. We don't need to assume that people typically browse medical. info to diagnose. Even if only 20% of the people browsing are doing so to diagnose, the conclusion still holds.
The conclusion specifically concludes about people who attempt to diagnose through the web - whether these are 20% of people browsing or 80% of people browsing, it doesn't matter.

(B) People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.

Unless = If .. not ...
If people do not rely exclusively on science, they are likely to do themselves more harm.

In other words, we are saying that if people rely on quackery, they are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

Our argument does assume this. It does assume that quackery (non science) causes more harm than good.

If you are not sure, let's plug it in the premises and then look at our conclusion.

People browsing med info cannot distinguish between science and quackery (non scientific).
Quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background.
If people rely on quackery, they are likely to do themselves more harm.

Conclusion: People diagnosing through web are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

Does make more sense now, right?
The assumption is necessary for the conclusion. If we negate it (If people rely on quackery, they are NOT likely to do themselves more harm) then the conclusion doesn't make sense.

(C) People who have sufficient medical knowledge to discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery will do themselves no harm if they rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions.

Out of scope. The argument is discussing people who are unable to discriminate between science and quackery. What appeals to them, how they may harm themselves etc. The small percentage that is able to make this discrimination is out of scope for us. We are only talking about people who cannot discriminate.
Think of the entire universal set of all people. Say some of them browse the net for medical info (consider a circle inside the universal rectangle). Of these, most (say 90%) cannot discriminate between science and quackery. So we are saying that they usually cause themselves more harm than good. What happens to the other10%, we don't know and we don't care.

(D) Many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it is clearly written.

Not true. People assume nothing about validity of info that is clearly written. They just like that info more. It seems they do not question the validity of the info in either case - clearly written or not.


(E) People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information.

Option (E) says "Only if people rely on quackery, they will do themselves more harm than good."
This is not an assumption of the argument. People could do themselves more harm than good if they rely on scientific. info too since they wouldn't know how to use the scientific info properly.

Answer (B)

People who browse the web for medical information often cannot discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery. Much of the quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background because it is usually written more clearly than scientific papers. Thus, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires?

The argument is saying the following:

1. People cannot distinguish between scientifically valid information and quackery on the web.
2. The quackery is more appealing because it is written in simpler terms.
3. Conclusion: Relying on quackery, when diagnosing yourself on the web is harmful.

(A) People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.

The conclusion is that relying on quackery, when diagnosing yourself on the web is harmful, it does not matter whether typically people do not diagnose themselves. Sometimes they do.

(B) People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.

This statement is necessary for the argument because if it's NOT harmful to diagnose yourself relying exclusively on scientifically valid information, then quackery might not be harmful, which contradicts the conclusion.

(C) People who have sufficient medical knowledge to discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery will do themselves no harm if they rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions.

The argument says that relying on quackery, when diagnosing yourself on the web is harmful, the argument does not claim that relying on scientifically valid information, when diagnosing yourself on the web guarantees that is will be harmless. So, even it's not true it does not weaken the conclusion that relying on quackery, when diagnosing yourself on the web is harmful

(D) Many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it is clearly written.

This option suggests that many people assume information is scientifically valid only if it is written clearly. This assumption could lead many people to mistake quackery for scientifically valid information, but this is not needed to conclude that relying on quackery, when diagnosing yourself on the web is harmful.

(E) People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information.

This option is too general and too broad. The conclusion is that relying on quackery, when diagnosing yourself on the web is harmful, not that NOLNY this is harmful, it might be that many other things are harmful.