by uhdang Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:21 pm
Hi,
I had a pretty tough time going though this question, too. I changed my reasoning multiple times while I was writing this down. But I feel like my reasoning is pretty solid. So, here we go.
This is a necessary assumption, so the correct answer should either "link a missing gap" or "defend the argument by eliminating a potential weak point."
Here is the Core:
Peer review delays public access + Peer review is the only way to prevent miscellaneous information from reaching public. ==> Waiting until medical journal publication is a legitimate cost to make sure public doesn't make substandard decision.
Argument sounded pretty airtight. Couldn't spot the missing link. (If anyone could point out one, please do) I concluded that this question is a "defender" type. So, I went for the answer choices to look for the one eliminating potential weakness.
A) Re-wording this sentence would read, "If peer review occurs, medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal." This necessitates "medical journal"-route when peer review is being done. In other words, there could be no other ways that peer review could be done, but to bring the findings to peer review via medical journal. What if research findings could be brought to peer review by some other ways? What if a local newspaper has decided to publish a medical research finding, and this newspaper company asked peer review panel to review this first and then publish the finding? This would actually indicate that "waiting until medical journal has published (conclusion)" would NOT necessarily be the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on substandard research. (Since this findings did go through peer review, it would be verified to be safe) Therefore, this answer choice defends the argument from a possibility of peer review-verified research findings to be accessible to public without going through medical journal.
B) This one was very tempting. But the argument only said that "peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous information to get to the public" and "a panel of experts reviews medical journals in peer review." The argument never stated that a medical review panel has necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research findings. So this has no influence on medical review panel. What this ACTUALLY does is to influence a part of a premise, "a public that is ill-equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own." B) just strengthens this premise. It's a premise booster. No influence to the gap between premise and conclusion.
C) This would weaken the argument, because whether they go through the peer review or not, public won’t have the access anyway. Thus, this hurts the conclusion.
D) We are concerned with whether it is an appropriate cost to wait for the publication of medical journal or not. How much of findings go through peer reviews and get published is not our concern. No influence on the core.
E) This would weaken the premise, "peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public." We are not looking for a premise-weakener.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
"Fun"