Science writer: All scientists

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Required17% picked this

   The scientists reviewing serious scientific papers for publication do not always have biases likely to slant their interpretations of

   This would Strengthen the author's case, but it's not necessary. If we negate this, it says that the reviewers always have biases that slant their interpretations of the papers they're reviewing. That might sound damaging, but the author acknowledged in the first sentence that all scientists have beliefs/values that could bias them. So she might freely accept that all reviewers have biases that slant their review. However, she could still say that because you have many scientists reviewing these papers, even though they have their own biases, they are able to spot different biases held by those who wrote the papers. A team of biased reviewers, all calling out biases that they don't share with the writer could successfully weed out most/all biases from the paper. It's almost like if you have a team of politicians, with their own political biases, working together on a piece of legislation. Because they'll all call out the things that go too far afield of their own comfort zone, the resulting legislation should be pretty center of the road.

   17%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   In general, biases that slant interpretations of data in serious scientific papers being reviewed for publication are not

   Why this is right

   If we negate this one, it becomes a damaging objection: the biases that generally slant interpretations of data are shared among all scientists. Thus, a team of reviewers that all shared the same bias wouldn't notice or object to it, because they all share it. And that's how biases would make it through to the publication phase.

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

   68%
3. C

   Out of Scope: "scientific value"4% picked this

   Biases that are present in published scientific papers and shared by most scientists, including those who review the papers, are unlikely to impair

   The argument is only concerned with whether biases are weeded out or not by the pre-publication review phase. No part of the argument is concerned with whether or not the papers have scientific value.

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: "the only part"3% picked this

   The interpretation of data is the only part of a serious scientific paper that is sometimes slanted by the

   The argument wouldn't care whether other parts of a paper are sometimes/never biased. The conclusion is only about whether the interpretations of data end up still being biased at the publication stage. This is a classic Necessary Assumption trap answer pattern: only one source of bias is mentioned, so they write a trap answer saying "it's the only source of bias".

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: "only through peer review"8% picked this

   Slanted interpretations of data in a scientific paper can be removed only through careful review by scientists who do not share the biases of

   The author is assuming that peer review is sufficient weed out most biases, but she doesn't have to assume that peer review is necessary to weed out biases, as this answer says.

   8%