Public health will improve more quickly

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   Many medical researchers do not agree to serve as reviewers when their own research is

   Out of Scope: researchers refuse to review This answer is about a very specific scenario in which a medical researcher is asked to review someone else's work and they're like, "Actually, I'm too busy right now. I'm in a critical phase of my own research." The argument was never remotely addressing such a specific storyline. It doesn't matter whether the author thinks that this sort of "sorry, I'm too busy" refusal happens many times, tons of times, never, etc.

   1%
2. B

   Irrelevant Distinction2% picked this

   Reviewers for many medical journals are not themselves

   This does have the lovable ruling-out "not" that typifies so many correct answers on Necessary Assumption (Defender-style answers). We can negate this and ask ourselves whether it would turn into an objection. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "The reviewers for many medical journals are themselves medical researchers"? Nope. If anything, that's probably what the author is assuming. After all, it's called peer-review for a reason.

   2%
3. C

   Correct82% picked this

   People would use new medical information even if it were not first published

   Why this is right

   The author's argument is saying that "the public will benefit sooner if the medical researchers take their discovery to the press right away, rather than waiting until it shows up in a peer-reviewed journal". In order for the public health to benefit from this new information, the public would have to be willing to use that new medical information. This answer is just establishing that baseline of plausibility for this Plan to achieve its Goal. If we negate this answer, it's saying "If new medical information has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then people would not use that new medical info yet". This would destroy the Net Gain the author was hoping to achieve with her plan. She's telling medical researchers to go right away to the press so that the public can immediately report, "A research lab claims to have found that two teaspoons of hydrogen peroxide a day can kill COVID". The negation of this answer is saying that people wouldn't actually act on this new information yet. They'd be like, "Okayyyyy, I'm not so sure. I'm going to wait until the rest of the medical community has a chance to weigh in on the efficacy and safety of this treatment." Thus, even if medical researchers started publicizing their findings sooner, it wouldn't cause public health to improve more quickly. People would still be waiting for the peer-review process either way.

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

   82%
4. D

   Contradicted8% picked this

   The peer-review process could be speeded up enough to produce a significant improvement

   The final sentence says that the peer-review process is unavoidably slow.

   8%
5. E

   Too Strong: not usually7% picked this

   New medical information that is first published in peer-reviewed journals does not usually

   This does have the lovable ruling-out "not" that typifies so many correct answers on Necessary Assumption (Defender-style answers). We can negate this and ask ourselves whether it would turn into an objection. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "New medical info that's first published in peer-reviewed journals usually does receive public attention?" No, that has no effect. The author thinks in the current world that once new medical info is published in a peer-reviewed journal, that's when public health starts to improve (either because the journal article itself receives public attention or because that's when the press is finally notified of the discovery, or both). The author's plan is all about getting information to the public before it's been reported in a peer review journal. The author is assuming that "new medical information does not usually receive public attention before it's been published in a peer-review journal".

   7%