PT155 S1 Q12 ExplanationPhysician: Of the health experts

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: should advocate1% picked this

   If a substance has health benefits when consumed in moderation, then physicians should advocate moderate consumption even if

   When Necessary Assumption answers offer conditional statements, we ask ourselves whether the author made that move. Did she establish the left side of the arrow and then conclude / assume the right side? There is no match at all for the right side of this. The argument is never talking about physicians or saying what they should advocate.

   1%
2. B

   Wrong Ending2% picked this

   Assertions regarding the health benefits of foods or drinks should be supported by

   This assertion regarding the health benefits of the drink red wine is supported by statistical evidence. The reason the author rejects evidence as inconclusive is that it doesn't include an explanation of the biochemical mechanism behind the purported connection between wine and cardiac health. So this answer would better match an assumption the author makes if it said, "Assertions regarding the health benefits of X should be supported by an identification of what biochemical mechanism allows X to be beneficial."

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope: should7% picked this

   Physicians should not make any recommendations regarding the consumption of food or drink unless there is conclusive

   Again, like (A), this answer is hitting us with a totally out of scope normative term like "should". Nothing in the argument discusses what physicians should / shouldn't recommend.

   7%
4. D

   Correct87% picked this

   Evidence regarding the health benefits of foods or drinks must be corroborated by accurate accounts of the mechanisms involved

   Why this is right

   This matches the linking idea we were searching for, "If haven't determined biochemical mechanism, then evidence is inconclusive". This is saying that "Being conclusive requires being corroborated by accurate accounts of the mechanisms involved." Conclusive → Corroborated by accurate evidence accounts of the mechanisms The contrapositive of this rule looks a lot like our argument, If it hasn't been corroborated then not by accurate accounts of the → conclusive mechanisms involved Beyond looking at the conditional and deeming that, "Yes .. the argument does make this move", we could also negate this answer and feel how it weakens. The author said, "Sure they provided stats, but they haven't determined the mechanism involved, so their evidence is inconclusive." Our negation would sound like, "You don't need to corroborate evidence about the health benefits of drinks with an account of the mechanism involved in order for the evidence to be conclusive." That definitely sounds like an objection!

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

   87%
5. E

   Out of Scope: should3% picked this

   One should try to find a causal mechanism for the health benefits of a substance only if those

   Just like (A) and (C), this is introducing the language of "should", which doesn't appear anywhere in the argument. The argument is descriptive, not normative. The author is only making claims about what is, not about what should be.

   3%