Physicians prescribe treatments that can cause serious side effects. The maladies that doctors treat have existed for many years. Yet, the treatments prescribed are novel and dangerous. Treatment side effects cause not only things such as itchy eyes or upset stomach, but also, depression, heart failure, and damaged immune systems. Natural remedies are preferable because they have been used widely for thousands of years and are likely to carry comparatively low risk of serious side effects.
The argument is most clearly flawed for which of the following reasons?
- The argument assumes a preference for treatments that have existed for a longer time than treatments that are newer
- The argument offers no reason why natural remedies are preferable to modern treatments
- The argument relies heavily on an appeal to emotion
- The argument draws an overly broad conclusion
- The argument fails to address whether natural remedies cause side effects as severe as those of modern treatments
Question type: Flaw
Difficulty level: Medium
Summary of the argument: The suggested conclusion here is that modern medicine is reckless. Because it prescribes novel treatments with side effects for diseases that have existed for a long time.
- This is accurate since the argument falsely assumes that older is better than newer.
- The argument does provide a rationale for this.
- This is not a flaw in this argument.
- This is untrue.
- The argument does address this and therefore is not a valid flaw.