Self-study
Dr. █████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████
Argument Summary
Dr. Ruiz argues that Dr. Smith cannot be included on this panel about the dangers of secondhand smoke. This is because Dr. Smith has publicly expressed antismoking views, and Dr. Ruiz wants to make sure the panel is unbiased.
Analysis: Ways to Weaken
Dr. Ruiz makes a few assumptions, notably that expressing antismoking views makes Dr. Smith "biased," and that Dr. Smith's bias alone will undermine the ability of the panel as a whole to examine the issue in an unbiased manner. We could weaken this argument by undermining either assumption: e.g., by arguing that Dr. Smith's antismoking opinions don't necessarily make her "biased" on this issue, or by pointing out that if Dr. Smith is balanced out by other panel members who are more neutral or pro-smoking, the panel as a whole could still be unbiased.
24.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████
a
A panel composed ██ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ █ █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████
Correct. Like we discussed in our analysis, (A) effectively undermines Dr. Ruiz's assumption that Dr. Smith's views alone will prevent the panel as a whole from exploring the issue in an unbiased way. (A) tells us that, if there is a similarly outspoken person representing the opposite view, having Dr. Smith on the panel might actually help ensure the panel reaches an unbiased conclusion.
b
People who hold ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ██████
Incorrect. If anything, (B) supports Dr. Ruiz's assumption that Dr. Smith's strong views will make her "biased" in her handling of evidence.
c
A panel that ████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████ █ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████
Incorrect. All (C) tells us is that having Dr. Smith on the panel will likely make the discussion more "lively." But liveliness isn't the same thing as being unbiased, which is what Dr. Ruiz is concerned about — he wants to exclude Dr. Smith because he thinks she will make the panel biased. (C) doesn't give us any reason to reject that argument.
d
People who have █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████
Incorrect. Dr. Smith's ability to raise funds for her case doesn't tell us anything about whether she should be on this panel.
e
People who have ████████████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████
Incorrect. (E) actually strengthens Dr. Ruiz's argument by lending credence to his assumption that if Dr. Smith is on the panel, she will cause the panel's investigation to be biased.