Question 24 from December 1992 Prep Forum

[dvpeppers]

Hi all,

Working through this practice test I found that I disagreed with the correct answer for the following question.
A quick process of elimination narrows the answers to a) and c). The answer is a). My problem with this is that in order for the panel to reach an unbiased conclusion, the qualified people must have strong but conflicting views on a topic. Yet in the setup, there is no indication that the panel members fulfill the condition of conflicting views with Dr. Smith. In fact the panel members, insofar as they are examining second hand smoke danger, share antismoking sentiment with Dr. Smith. In light of this unfulfilled condition, I thought that c) would be the most plausible answer, if only by elimination. I understand that a. is certainly the most relevant to answering the question. Still, the condition of conflicting views not being met, I believe this eliminates a) as a plausible answer.

Please let me know your thoughts. The question follows.

24: Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in public. Even though Dr. Smith is otherwise qualified, clearly she cannot be included on a panel that examines the danger of second hand cigarette smoke. As an organizer of the panel, I want to ensure that the panel examines the issue in an unbiased manner before coming to any conclusion.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for countering Dr. Ruiz' argument that Dr. Smith should not be included on the panel?

a) A panel composed of qualified people with strong but conflicting views on a particular topic is more likely to reach an unbiased conclusion than a panel composed who have kept their views, if any, private.

b) People who hold strong views on a particular topic tend to accept new evidence on that topic only if it supports their views.

c) A panel that includes one qualified person with publicly known strong views on a particular topic is more likely to have lively discussions than a panel that includes only people with no well defined views on that topic.

d) People who have expressed strong views in public on a particular topic are better at raising funds to support their case than are people who have never expressed strong views in public.

e) 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 members who are not committed at the outset to any conclusion.

[natashka85]

Hi all,

Working through this practice test I found that I disagreed with the correct answer for the following question.
A quick process of elimination narrows the answers to a) and c). The answer is a). My problem with this is that in order for the panel to reach an unbiased conclusion, the qualified people must have strong but conflicting views on a topic. Yet in the setup, there is no indication that the panel members fulfill the condition of conflicting views with Dr. Smith. In fact the panel members, insofar as they are examining second hand smoke danger, share antismoking sentiment with Dr. Smith. In light of this unfulfilled condition, I thought that c) would be the most plausible answer, if only by elimination. I understand that a. is certainly the most relevant to answering the question. Still, the condition of conflicting views not being met, I believe this eliminates a) as a plausible answer.

Please let me know your thoughts. The question follows.

24: Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in public. Even though Dr. Smith is otherwise qualified, clearly she cannot be included on a panel that examines the danger of second hand cigarette smoke. As an organizer of the panel, I want to ensure that the panel examines the issue in an unbiased manner before coming to any conclusion.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for countering Dr. Ruiz' argument that Dr. Smith should not be included on the panel?

a) A panel composed of qualified people with strong but conflicting views on a particular topic is more likely to reach an unbiased conclusion than a panel composed who have kept their views, if any, private.

b) People who hold strong views on a particular topic tend to accept new evidence on that topic only if it supports their views.

c) A panel that includes one qualified person with publicly known strong views on a particular topic is more likely to have lively discussions than a panel that includes only people with no well defined views on that topic.

d) People who have expressed strong views in public on a particular topic are better at raising funds to support their case than are people who have never expressed strong views in public.

e) 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 members who are not committed at the outset to any conclusion.

C is wrong cause it says a panel that includes one qualified person,the argument doesn`t say that.
A is right,but it never says they have conflicting views with Smith,it says they have conflicting views about sth,see that part in the argument ani smoking(conflicting about smoking),A says conflicting views about a topic(about smoking)

[dvpeppers]

but c) is a conditional whereby the antecedent needing satisfaction would be 'if one qualified person with publicly known strong views on a particular topic is included on the panel' and the consequent being 'then the panel is more likely to have lively discussions than a panel that includes only people with no well defined views on that topic'. So the setup indicating that Smith is otherwise qualified, the antecedent would be satisfied and the consequent would discharge.

It seems plausible that antismoking could be a conflicting view, but that also seems like it stretches the language. Also, I can see that the above conditional doesn't directly answer the question of responding to Ruiz bias concern, but as I said, using elimination it seems to most plausible of those answers left.

I still don't see a) as being any more plausible than c).

[natashka85]

but c) is a conditional whereby the antecedent needing satisfaction would be 'if one qualified person with publicly known strong views on a particular topic is included on the panel' and the consequent being 'then the panel is more likely to have lively discussions than a panel that includes only people with no well defined views on that topic'. So the setup indicating that Smith is otherwise qualified, the antecedent would be satisfied and the consequent would discharge.

It seems plausible that antismoking could be a conflicting view, but that also seems like it stretches the language. Also, I can see that the above conditional doesn't directly answer the question of responding to Ruiz bias concern, but as I said, using elimination it seems to most plausible of those answers left.

I still don't see a) as being any more plausible than c).

C also mentions lively discussion which is irrelevant in this case all the conclusion is concerned with is bias.

[unitball]

conclusion: Dr. smith shouldn't be included on the panel.

premises (paraphrased):

"Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in public" = Dr. Smith has expressed a strong view

AND

" panel should examine the issues in an unbiased manner"

----------------------------

so basically the panel has to make decisions in an unbiased way.

We're looking for answer choice that helps us conclude "We may want to include Dr. Smith on the panel even though Dr. Smith has expressed strong views". (this is opposite to what the stimulus concludes)

C is wrong because having "lively discussions" is unrelated to coming to conclusions in an unbiased manner. You can have lively biased discussions, lively unbiased discussions, lively ANYTHING discussions. Imagine an energetic and impassioned discussion about antismoking where all the people involved in the discussion have very strong antismoking views. The discussion would be very lively, but very biased. Answer C does nothing to the stimulus argument and does nothing to strengthen an argument against the stimulus argument.

"A" is a better answer choice because it directly addresses the need for the panel to reach conclusions using unbiased processes. This answer choice says hey, if we have people who've expressed strong conflicting views (such as Dr. Smith) on the panel, then the panel is more likely to reach an unbiased conclusion. This means that if Dr. Smith IS INCLUDED (directly opposite to the conclusion), then the panel is more likely to reach an unbiased conclusion than if it consisted only of people who have unexpressed and/or unknown (to everyone else) views.

My problem with this is that in order for the panel to reach an unbiased conclusion, the qualified people must have strong but conflicting views on a topic. to joining a panel are often able to impose their views on panel members who are not committed at the outset to any conclusion.

Answer choice A doesn't say the panel must have qualified people with conflicting views. It says a panel including qualified people with conflicting views will be "more likely" to reach an unbiased decision.

[mason.zh]

I guess the key is "unbiased manner". Only A addressed this isse. C is instead talking about "lively discussion" which might or might not has something to do with "unbiased manner" depends on your own assumption.....