Second legislator: Considerations of male/female balance such as this are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.
Summarize Argument
The second legislator concludes that considerations of male/female balance have no place in science, since such considerations are inappropriate in research.
Notable Assumptions
The second legislator assumes that what’s inappropriate in research (considerations of male/female balance) have no place in science. He also assumes that considerations of male/female balance wouldn’t helpfully affect the outcomes of the research in question, which may deal with physiological factors that differ between male and female participants.
A
Government-sponsored research is supported by all taxpayers, both male and female.
We would need a principle telling us that taxpayers should be equally represented in scientific research for this to be true. As it is, the second legislator simply argues that concerns about a male/female balance has no place in science.
B
Serving as a subject for medical research can provide a patient access to new treatments but also can subject the patient to risks.
We don’t care about the individual participants. We need to weaken the second legislator’s argument about male/female balance considerations.
C
Government-sponsored medical research is often done in military hospitals or prisons that hold only male residents.
This explains why research is often done only on male participants. We need to know why male/female balance considerations may in fact have a place in science.
D
The training of male and female scientists does not differ according to their sex.
We’re not interested in scientists. We need to know whether the participants’ sex is relevant to research.
E
Restriction to males of the patient base on which data are collected results in inadequate science.
Studying on males produces data that falls short of proper science. Thus, considerations about the male/female balance are in fact justified.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How did the Inuit settlers in Greenland survive the temperature drop that occurred around 1500, while the Norse settlers were killed?
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between the Norse settlements and the Inuit settlements. That difference will provide insight into why the former group disappeared and the latter survived following the temperature drop that occurred around 1500 in Greenland.
A
The drop in average yearly temperature was smaller in Greenland than it was in the world as a whole.
This does not explain why the Inuit and Norse settlements were affected differently by the temperature drop in Greenland.
B
The Norse settlers’ diet, unlike that of the Inuit, was based primarily on livestock and crops that were unable to survive the temperature drop.
(B) offers a key difference that helps explain the phenomenon. Because the Norse settlers lost their food sources due to the temperature drop while the Inuit did not, it’s understandable why the Norse settlers were unable to survive the cold.
C
There were settlements in North America during the fifteenth century that were most likely founded by Norse settlers who had come from Greenland.
(C) does not offer information that is relevant to explaining the phenomenon described in the stimulus.
D
The Inuit and the Norse settlements were typically established in coastal areas.
(D) offers a similarity between the Norse and Inuit settlements. The correct answer will offer a difference that explains why the latter group survived the temperature drop while the former group did not.
E
The Norse community in Norway continued to thrive long after 1500.
The stimulus is concerned with Greenland, not Norway.