Q10 - Advertisement: Auto accidents

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Get LIC's complete course of treatment after any accident that involves a fall/bump on the head.
Evidence: Auto accidents most commonly cause whiplash, but other accidents also cause the sudden sharp motion of the neck that results in whiplash.

Answer Anticipation:
Okay … well, tell me literally ANYTHING about LIC! Is this complete course affordable? Effective? No bad side effects?

We could definitely criticize the ad for basically saying "Whiplash happens. Come get it treated here at Lakeside." but offers literally no reason why we should choose Lakeside.

However, if we're also picking up on extreme language in conclusion, we also see that ad says "ANY time you have an accident that involves a fall or bump on the head, receive A COMPLETE course of whiplash treatment." That seems pretty excessive, doesn't it?

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) "Being shoved" is outside the scope of the conclusion, which is only about falls and head bumps.

(B) We already know auto accidents often cause whiplash. This feels like a premise booster.

(C) We already know this. Shoving, for example, is a nonautomobile accident other than those involving falls or bumps that can cause whiplash

(D) YES! This gets at the extreme wording of the conclusion. "I should get a COMPLETE whiplash treatment after ANY accident that involves a fall or bump on the head?! It's very uncommon for falls or bumps to result in a sudden sharp neck motion (i.e. whiplash)."

(E) This strengthens the idea that you could come to LIC for ALL of your whiplash needs.

Takeaway/Pattern: The fact that the ad gave no positive reason for coming to Lakeside could have been exploited, but none of the answers even bring up Lakeside. That might be our clue that they're testing something else, if we didn't initially notice the extreme wording of the conclusion.

You should always practice defining the Anti-Conclusion (if the author is saying "guilty", we're arguing "not guilty").
If the author is saying
"After every fall or head bump, you should get a complete whiplash treatment",
we're saying
"There's at least one time when you get a fall or head bump for which you do NOT need to get a complete whiplash treatment".

#officialexplanation

[olaizola.mariana]

I was deciding between (D) and (E) and ultimately picked (E). I will explain my reasoning, and hopefully someone can point out my reasoning error.

The conclusion of the advertiser's argument is that you should receive the complete course of treatment for whiplash, including whiplash that results from falling or a bump on the head. (E) says that such treatment is actually no different from that caused by car accidents. I thought this destroyed the advertiser's argument because it directly attacked the notion that one should receive the treatment specifically for falls and bumps. But if the treatments are in fact no different, there is no need to receive the course that includes treatment for falls and bumps [i.e. the treatment course for car accidents would suffice].

By contrast (D) seemed a weak criticism, because even if something is uncommon it doesn't mean one should not be prepared for that eventuality.

Thank you in advance for your ideas.

[muriella]

I feel for (E) as well but in hindsight, this is how I might have picked (D). Maybe a Manhattan Geek can affirm or amend this reasoning:

Conclusion: you should take the complete course of treatment for whiplash after any accident involving a fall or head bump.

P1: Whiplash is caused by a sudden sharp motion of the neck.
P2: the most common cause of whiplash is from car accidents.
P3: But there are other things - falls, head bumps, and even someone shoving you from behind - that can also cause a sudden sharp motion of the neck.

But if (D) is true - if it's very uncommon for falls or head bumps to result in sudden sharp motion of the neck - then why "insist" on getting the whole course of treatment for whiplash, as the clinic advises.

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a weird one, I'll give you that.

Question type: Weaken

Argument core

conclusion
you should get a complete course of whiplash treatment after any accident that involves a fall or bump on the head

evidence
whiplash = injury from a sudden sharp motion on the neck
possible causes of whiplash = car accident, a fall, a bump on the head, shove from behind

ANALYSIS OF THE CORE
It seemed like a lot of info about whiplash, but no sales pitch for Lakeside's Clinic. My initial reaction was just ... "Okay ... but why should I get your whiplash treatment?"

It seemed like a flaw was that the ad doesn't provide any reason why we should favor Lakeside's treatment over any others (or even why we need treatment in the first place).

On Weaken questions (as well as Strengthen, Flaw, and Necessary Assumption) I find it very useful to articulate the Anti-Conclusion.

The actual conclusion is an extreme claim, a conditional, signified by 'any'.
IF you're in an accident that involves a fall / head bump --> Lakeside's whiplash treatment

To disprove a conditional (like "IF you're a mother, THEN you like chocolate"), you just need ONE example of something that IS the left side but ISN'T the right side (one example of a mother who does not like chocolate).

We can attack this author's conclusion if we can introduce an example of someone who DID get into an accident involves a fall / head-bump but SHOULD NOT get Lakeside's whiplash treatment.

ANSWER CHOICES
(A) This doesn't seem to do anything. 'Shoved from behind' is not in the conclusion.

(B) This is just a word blender. If anything, it feels like it goes WITH the author.

(C) This is totally out of scope, since the conclusion is only about accidents that DO involve a fall or head bump.

(D) This is saying that accidents involving falls / head bumps USUALLY do NOT cause whiplash! (i.e. a sudden sharp motion of the neck)

Perfect! To go against the author's conclusion, we need an example of an accident in which you DO have a fall / head bump but you SHOULD NOT insist on Lakeside's whiplash treatment.

Well, (D) is telling us that most accidents in which you DO have a fall / head bump do not even involve whiplash!

(E) This doesn't give us a way to say that people who DID have a fall / head bump should NOT get whiplash treatment.

(The original poster was interpreting the conclusion as saying "You should take Lakeside's course that is specifically designed for falls / bumps on the head". I can see where that misinterpretation could come from. In order to lock in the meaning she was seeing, it would have to say something more like "Lakeside's complete course of treatment for whiplash resulting from an accident that involves a fall or bump on the head."

The real language leap in this argument ends up being:
"falls / bumps on the head are sometimes a cause of whiplash" (PREM)
vs.
"any accident with a fall / bump on the head involves whiplash" (ASSUMP/CONC)

[olaizola.mariana]

Ah, I see! This question would have been so much easier to understand had they included the word "suffering" before "any accident that involves a fall or bump on the head." You're right, I completely misinterpreted the meaning of that last part of the sentence. Thanks!

[zhm222006]

Thank you so much. Love your explanation, ohthatpatrick.