Double-blind techniques should be used

Answer choices

1. A

   Inference Bait4% picked this

   Scientists’ objectivity may be impeded by interpreting experimental evidence on the basis of expectations and opinions

   The argument never even talks about "objectivity". We don't want to pick any new unstated ideas. This answer is essentially baiting us with an idea we could potentially derive from the 2nd claim.

   4%
2. B

   Correct63% picked this

   It is advisable for scientists to use double-blind techniques in as high a proportion of their

   Why this is right

   This best paraphrases the argument's first claim.

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   63%
3. C

   Unstated2% picked this

   Scientists sometimes neglect to adequately consider the risk of misinterpreting evidence on the basis of

   We don't want to pick anything unstated (if the Conclusion is explicit, which it will be 98% of the time). The paragraph never talks about scientists neglecting to adequately consider risk.

   2%
4. D

   Premise / Last-Claim Bait5% picked this

   Whenever possible, scientists should refrain from interpreting evidence on the basis of previously formed

   This is the 3rd claim. While the last claim will be the conclusion in about 10% of Main Conclusion questions, we should be pretty skeptical when we see ourselves picking something that matches the final claim, since 90% of the time it will be wrong.

   5%
5. E

   Unstated / Too Strong: "ensuring"25% picked this

   Double-blind experimental techniques are often an effective way of ensuring

   Clearly, the author is a fan of double-blind and would probably say that these techniques help us to avoid misinterpretations (which could be rephrased as "help us to maintain objectivity"). But our job here isn't to pick an answer that makes a claim that the author would probably agree with (although "ensuring objectivity" seems pretty strong, even for that task). Our job is to pick an answer that matches the actual conclusion. The first sentence was our conclusion, and it doesn't say anything about scientific objectivity. It just says to use double-blind techniques as much as possible, so we want an answer to just regurgitate that meaning.

   25%