When people show signs

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite1% picked this

   Experts agreed that the cardiologist made few obvious mistakes in reading and interpreting

   This seems to mildly strengthen. Someone might have argued, "Wait a sec -- don't turn over EKG data to computers just yet. This cardiologist they used in the study wasn't as good as a normal cardiologist would've been, despite being very experienced + highly skilled." This answer would wipe away that objection, saying, "No, she was good. Other experts verified that she made few, if any, obvious errors."

   1%
2. B

   Weak Impact7% picked this

   The practice of medicine is as much an art as a science, and computer programs are not easily

   Because this gets so broad ("the practice of medicine") when our topic is quite narrow ("interpreting EKG data"), it's hard to use this idea as any focused attack on the argument. The author could say, "Yes, of course medicine is both art and science. I'm not saying a computer should replace all human medical doctors. I'm only saying a computer might be better at crunching EKG data." If this answer said "the practice of interpreting an EKG" involves a lot of subjective or intuitive judgments that are hard for computers, then it would have more impact.

   7%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   The cardiologist correctly diagnosed a significantly higher proportion of the cases in which no heart attack occurred than

   Why this is right

   This answer says that the doctor won when it came to false negatives. If we went with the computer's diagnosis, then a lot of people who didn't have heart attack would be told that they did. If we went with the cardiologist's, then a lot of people who did have a heart attack would be told that they didn't. Neither situation is great. This answer isn't picking one over the other; it's just saying, "Whoa, there. The computer by no means won the competition against the cardiologist. Seems like more of a tie."

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

   70%
4. D

   No Impact11% picked this

   In a considerable percentage of cases, EKG data alone are insufficient to enable either computer programs or cardiologists

   This argument is only about who's going to interpret the EKG data: a computer or a cardiologist. This answer is about cases in which neither one could make an accurate judgment, so it doesn't make us lean one way or the other.

   11%
5. E

   Opposite11% picked this

   The cardiologist in the study was unrepresentative of cardiologists in general with respect to

   Those wily rascals. Normally pointing out an unrepresentative sample weakens an argument, but in this case the fact that the cardiologist was unrepresentative helps the argument: she's unlike most cardiologists in that she is VERY experienced and HIGHLY skilled. (granted, there could be other ways in which she's unrepresentative, but we already know she's a positive outlier when it comes to experience and skill, so we don't need to go speculating about other ones) If I was trying to convince you that I had built an amazingly powerful chess computer, would you be more impressed if the computer beat someone who was representative of people in general who play chess, or more impressed if the computer beat one of the top 10 players in the world?

   11%