Question:

Read the passage given below carefully and answer the question that follows:
... Chance provides more than enough variation to account for the sprinkling of successes that will occur with almost any treatment, indeed, it would be a miracle if there weren't any "miracle cures."
The claim that "it would be a miracle if there weren't any 'miracle cures'" would be most weakened by evidence that showed that:

Show Hint

In logic evaluation, to "weaken" an argument, you must find a statement that attacks the foundational premise. If the model assumes $X \rightarrow Y$ based on the presence of $Z$ (natural healing), removing $Z$ destroys the model's predictive power.
Updated On: Mar 27, 2026
  • the possibility of improvement is nonexistent during the course of many illnesses
  • some patients recover from illness without any sort of intervention at all
  • most illnesses cure themselves
  • some crackpot treatments have turned out to have authentic medical benefit
  • the number of fraudulent medical practitioners has dwindled considerably
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation


Step 1:
Deconstruct the author's logic.
The author claims that because most illnesses have "natural ups and downs" and are "self-limiting", statistical variance (chance) guarantees that *some* people will naturally get better while taking a fake treatment. Thus, fake "miracle cures" are statistically inevitable.

Step 2:
Find the logical vulnerability (Weakener).
If illnesses did *not* have natural ups and downs—meaning if a patient never improved on their own naturally—then chance could not provide the illusion of a cure. Option (A) attacks the root premise: if the possibility of natural improvement is nonexistent, the author's statistical argument collapses.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top MAH MBA CET English Questions

View More Questions

Top MAH MBA CET Reading Comprehension Questions

View More Questions