Q23 - In scientific journals, authors

[wj097]

Would (C) be a viable answer that illustrates conflict of interest if the wording of "private information" was instead "internal information"??

Thx

[zana.nanic]

I have just one doubt: authors and reviewers in scientific journals= financial advisors?

[Nina]

how should we express the principle illustrated in the argument? can it be expressed as "if there's suspicious violation of integrity in a specific filed, the disclosure of related commercial holdings should be related"?

and i'm not sure what's wrong with answer D. Is that because in the argument didn't mention "doesn't allow", but only about requiring some kind of transparency regarding financial problem?

Thanks a lot!

[bbirdwell]

There are definitely some tempting choices here. Perhaps a clearer analysis up-front will help us navigate the choices more effectively.

"¢ in science journals, authors have praised companies in which they have substantial investments
"¢ this potential conflict of interest calls into question the integrity of scientific inquiry

Therefore: there should be full disclosure of the authors holdings

As is so often the case, a real focus on the CONCLUSION (full disclosure) of the argument can help us from getting distracted by answers that otherwise seem to be in the ballpark. Let's look at the choices.

(A) This is tempting if we have a merely ballpark or impressionistic understanding of the argument. However, the conclusion had nothing to do with whether those folks SHOULD or SHOULD NOT invest... The argument was that WE SHOULD KNOW. Eliminate!

(B) way off

(C) Again, the given argument makes no claims whatsoever about what people should be allowed or not allowed to do. Eliminate.

(D) Out for the same reasons as A and C. "Full disclosure" is what our argument is about - not what people can and can't do.

(E) Bingo. "Should inform their clients..." is a perfect match for the pro-disclosure argument.

Hope that helps!