Editorial: If current trends continue

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Doctors should not be trained to treat a condition unless there exist effective treatments

   We don't really have to read this one closely, if we're savvy enough to see that this is a principle whose outcome would read "should not be trained". We want a principle whose outcome supports or matches the idea that doctors "should be trained more". This rule looks like this: If there aren't effective → Docs shouldn't be treatments for condition X trained for X As it turns out, the trigger also is a bad match. The argument never discusses whether there are / aren't effective treatments for obesity.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Changes in the way that doctors are trained are warranted only if there are changes

   We don't really have to read this one closely, if we're savvy enough to see that this is a principle whose outcome would read "changes in the way doctors are trained are not warranted." We want a principle whose outcome supports or matches the idea that changes in the way doctors are trained concerning obesity "is warranted". This rule looks like this (once we contrapose it so that the right side resembles the conclusion): If there haven't been changes → no change in training in treatment options for X for X is warranted As it turns out, the trigger also is a bad match. The argument never discusses whether there have / haven't been any changes in treatment options for X.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Doctors do more good when they treat their patients’ unpreventable illnesses than when they counsel

   We don't really have to read this one closely, if we see that this principle only helps us judge whether "doctors do more good" in situation X vs. Y. We're trying to support a conclusion that "doctors should get more training", which doesn't resemble "do more good" language at all. Furthermore, the other half of this answer doesn't match the Evidence. We weren't dealing with a comparison between preventable and unpreventable conditions. The argument only talks about obesity which is identified as a preventable cause of illness.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Doctors should focus their efforts on the health conditions that they are able to

   Again, there's no language in this answer that matches well with our "doctors need more training on obesity". The closest this rule would get is saying that "doctors should focus their efforts" on obesity. The other half of this rule is talking about whether doctors can treat a certain condition more effectively than another. That doesn't match our evidence language at all. We never heard that doctors can treat obesity more effectively than other conditions. This rule looks like this: If docs can treat condition → docs should focus their X most effectively efforts on X

   2%
5. E

   Correct95% picked this

   Doctors should be adequately trained to treat the underlying causes of

   Why this is right

   At long last, we have an answer that relates to the conclusion! We're trying to support a conclusion that says "doctors need more training when it comes to obesity" and this finally provides us with a rule that talks about how much doctors need to be trained. It looks like this: If there is an underlying docs should be cause of a preventable → adequately trained illness to treat it Would this rule apply to obesity? Is it an underlying cause of a preventable illness? Sure we're told it will soon be the leading cause of preventable illness. Are doctors currently adequately trained to treat obesity? No, about 45% of doctors said they don't feel qualified to advise their patients about weight-related issues. So this rule seems to support the idea that doctors need more training when it comes to obesity. (Whereas correct answers on Principle-Strengthen used to be much easier to predict, because they more closely matched the language of the Premise and Conclusion, correct answers nowadays are weirder, like this. We want to be very flexible when it comes to the trigger. If it's applicable, we're good. It doesn't need to capture all the concepts in the evidence. But we should be stubborn when it comes to the outcome. It still needs to sound a lot like the conclusion.)

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

   95%