Some people see no harm in promoting a folk remedy that in fact has no effect. But there is indeed harm: many people ...

Ravi June 8, 2019

@claire-crites,

Happy to help. Let's look at (B) and (D).

We're looking to add a principle that, if valid, would provide the
most support for justifying the argument.

(D) says, "A person is responsible for harm he or she does to someone
even if the harm was done unintentionally."

The problem with (D) is that we do not know whether or not the harm is
unintentional. Additionally, we do not yet know whether or not the
individuals who are promoting the folk remedies are actually doing
harm, as this is the conclusion that our answer is supposed to help
justify. Thus, (D) is out.

(B) says, "It is harmful to interfere with someone doing something
that is likely to benefit that person."

We know that folk remedies interfere with individuals taking the type
of medicine that will actually help them. If this interference is
harmful, then the argument's conclusion is justified, so (B) is great
and is the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!

Sheza August 27, 2020

@ravi hi, can you please explain why E is wrong.

Emil-Kunkin March 27, 2023

E is wrong for a few reasons. First, we aren't trying to prove partial responsibility, we are trying to show that an action is harmful.

More important, we are looking to justify the idea that something is harmful, and the argument had failed to define what it means to do harm. The only way to fix this is to define harm, which B does.