Q24 - Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed

[lbalocca]

Can someone please explain why A is better than C?

The way I see it, A could be disqualified because the stimulus only tells us that the panel will have one person with a strongly held view. We do not know if the other members of the panel have any views at all, let alone strong ones. So then how does A help counter Dr Ruiz's argument?

Likewise, I understand that C is wrong because a person with strong views will ensure lively discussion, which has nothing to do with the panel coming to an unbiased conclusion, but at least in C the condition actually applies to the stimulus.

How are you supposed to weigh the disqualifying factors in each answer?

[chike_eze]

C: Though Dr. Smith is qualified, she shouldn't be on the panel
P1: She has expressed anti-smoking views in public
P2: Panelists should examine issue in unbiased manner b4 deciding

Assumption: because Dr. Smith has expressed anti-smoking views publicly, she cannot deliberate in an unbiased manner

Task: Weaken argument

Correct = (A) "strong, but conflicting views more likely to reach an unbiased conclusion than those with non-public views". (A) weakens Ruiz's argument by suggesting that at least one publicly opinionated member is better than none in arriving at an unbiased decision. Obviously Ruiz supports an unbiased conclusion because he advocates "unbiased deliberations before arriving at any conclusion"

(B) "those with strong views only accept evidence in support of their views" -- this supports Ruiz's argument. Panelist deliberates through a biased perspective
(C) "public opinion... lively discussion" -- this is out of scope. We do not care about lively discussions, we care about unbiased deliberations (and conclusion)
(D) "public opinion... raising funds" -- like C, this is out of scope
(E) "strong views... can impose on others" -- this strengthens Ruiz's argument, i.e., bias is introduced to the panel by biased member

[Nina]

seems that A is the best choice. but i initially eliminate it due to its wording "strong but conflicting". i'm not sure how "antismoking views" can be described as "conflicting views" here.

Thanks for help!

[tommywallach]

Hey Nina,

"Strong but conflicting" isn't specifically about antismoking views. The point the argument is making is that it's better to have opinionated people on both sides of an argument, rather than a bunch of people with no opinion at all. Dr. Smith would be one of those people, but others would be required (on the other side of the debate).

Hope that helps!

-t

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Dr. Smith holds biased views as to the dangers of second-hand smoke.
The panel to should examine the issue in an unbias manner before coming to a conclusion.
Therefore, Dr. Smith shouldn’t be included on the panel

Gaps:
Presumes that the other people on the panel are not also biased.
Presumes Dr. Smith will be able to influence the discussion with her views / Cannot discuss the manner in an unbias fashion.


A) This looks good, keep for now.
B) This suggests that Dr. Smith would not be able to discuss the manner in an unbias fashion and would reject opposing views. Strengthens, get rid of this.
C) Having a lively discussion has nothing to do with whether the panel will come to an unbias conclusion, get rid of this
D) We're not arguing about who can raise more money, we're talking about whether Dr. Smith's presence on the panel will preclude it from discussion the manner in an unbias manner. Eliminate
E) This definitely doesn't weaken. If we presume that others on the panel aren't committed at the outset to any conclusion, this strengthens. Get rid of this.