Conclusion Double-blind techniques should be used whenever possible in scientific experiments. Support They help prevent the misinterpretations that often arise due to expectations and opinions that scientists already hold, and clearly Support scientists should be extremely diligent in trying to avoid such misinterpretations.
The author concludes that scientific experiments should use double-blind techniques. To support this recommendation, the author says that double-blind techniques help prevent misinterpretations that can come from pre-existing expectations or opinions. Further, the author says that scientists should try to avoid misinterpretations. So since double-blind techniques help avoid misinterpretations, scientists should use these techniques.
The conclusion of the argument is that scientific experiments should use double-blind techniques: “Double-blind techniques should be used whenever possible in scientific experiments.”
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
Scientists' objectivity may be impeded by interpreting experimental evidence on the basis of expectations and opinions that they already hold.
This information is offered as a premise. This information supports the recommendation to use double-blind techniques, because those techniques prevent the mis-interpretations that can come from pre-existing expectations and opinions.
It is advisable for scientists to use double-blind techniques in as high a proportion of their experiments as they can.
This is the conclusion. The author is recommending the use of double-blind techniques; the rest of the argument serves as support for this idea. This is a paraphrase of the first sentence of the argument, which is the conclusion.
Scientists sometimes neglect to adequately consider the risk of misinterpreting evidence on the basis of prior expectations and opinions.
The information in this answer could be understood as a reason that double-blind studies are beneficial, but the idea of scientists neglecting to consider the risk of misinterpretations is not explicitly mentioned in the argument. This is not the conclusion.
Whenever possible, scientists should refrain from interpreting evidence on the basis of previously formed expectations and convictions.
This is not a paraphrase of the first line of the argument, so it is not the main conclusion. Further, this idea is offered as support for the main conclusion, so it is a premise
Double-blind experimental techniques are often an effective way of ensuring scientific objectivity.
This information is a premise that supports the conclusion. This information is offered as a reason that double-blind techniques should be used: Because these techniques are effective in ensuring objectivity, we should use them.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic
