Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct80% picked this

   A panel composed of qualified people with strong but conflicting views on a particular topic is more likely to reach an unbiased conclusion than

   Why this is right

   This helps us argue that Dr. Smith could still be on the panel. The author wanted to disqualify her because he really needs this panel to examine an issue in an unbiased manner before coming to any conclusion. Meanwhile Dr. Smith has already expressed strong public views on this issue. This answer is saying, "Perfect! That's what we want. We have a better chance of getting an unbiased conclusion if we have someone like Dr. Smith, who has a strong public view on the issue. We just have to offset her with someone else who has a strong public view on the issue that conflicts with hers". Basically, it's saying that the better route to an unbiased conclusion is to have people who have a variety of strong opinions, rather than a group with no opinion.

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

   80%
2. B

   Strengthens3% picked this

   People who hold strong views on a particular topic tend to accept new evidence on that topic only

   This helps the author argue that Dr. Smith shouldn't be on the panel. She holds a strong view on the topic of the panel, and according to this answer, she would be unlikely to be able to process any conflicting views or conflicting evidence, (because she will only listen to new evidence if it confirms her pre-existing position).

   3%
3. C

   Unclear Impact12% picked this

   A panel that includes one qualified person with publicly known strong views on a particular topic is more likely to have lively discussions than

   We could try to use this answer to say, "Hey, author -- if we make it so that Dr. Smith is the only qualified person with publicly known strong views, then the panel will have more lively discussions". That vaguely sounds like a reason to argue in favor of Smith being on the panel, but there are two problems 1) we don't know that she would be the only qualified person with publicly known strong views 2) way more importantly, the author cares primarily about "examining the issue in an unbiased manner", and this is just saying that Smith would provide "lively discussions". Those two ideas aren't close to being equivalents.

   12%
4. D

   No Impact1% picked this

   People who have expressed strong views in public on a particular topic are better at raising funds to support their case than are people

   Like (C), this would allow us to say, "You should include Smith on the panel", for some vaguely positive sounding reason, that has nothing to do with unbiased analysis. This is saying Smith might be better at raising funds to support her view than would other people. Do we care whether people on this panel can raise funds? What does that have to do with achieving the goal of "examining the issue in an unbiased manner"?

   1%
5. E

   Strengthens4% picked this

   People who have well-defined strong views on a particular topic prior to joining a panel are often able to impose their views on panel

   This helps the author argue that Dr. Smith shouldn't be on the panel. She holds a strong view on the topic of the panel, and according to this answer, she be likely to bias the other panel members toward her view (which is the opposite of the unbiased analysis the author desires).

   4%