Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in publi

Question

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 secondhand 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 one 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 of people 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.

IanStewart · Answer

The answer I'd be looking for here -- that someone with strong views might have arrived at those views by carefully considering the facts, and that strong views are not de facto evidence of 'bias' -- isn't among the choices. Among the answers, A seems like the best contender, in particular because it specifies that the panel members will be "qualified". The other answers can't be right: B suggests that people with strong views are indeed biased; C doesn't discuss the relevant point (we don't care if their discussions are "lively"); D is irrelevant (funding is not at issue); and E suggests a reason to exclude people with strong views, not a reason to include them.

auradediligodo · Answer

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

Weaken question

Pre-thinking

What if in order to arrive to an unbiased opinion one can express their view in public?

An   assumption   made by Dr. Ruiz is that   if someone express their opinion in public, it won't be possible to arrive to an unbiased opinion.

POE:

(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 of people who have kept their views, if any, private.
 In line with our pre-thought   falsification scenario

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

(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.
 strengthener

(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.
 irrelevant

(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.
 strengthener

fireagablast · Answer

I read A, but didn't pick it because in reality it isn't true. That's why I picked C because it has basis in reality and, as an assumption, a lively discussion will produce more facts. 
But the question specifically says "if true", therefore A is the better answer because it's simpler and directly counters the argument.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray   KarishmaB

I was stuck between (A) and (C), can we say that (C) is wrong because it doesn't show how lively discussions reach to an  unbiased conclusion  which is the main concern of the argument?

guddo · Answer

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

Dr. Ruiz assumes that because Dr. Smith has publicly stated antismoking views, her presence would prevent an unbiased panel. A strong counter would show that having openly opinionated but qualified members can still lead to an unbiased outcome, or can even improve neutrality.

(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 of people who have kept their views, if any, private.

This directly counters Ruiz. It says that including qualified people with strong views (as long as views conflict) actually  improves  the chance of an unbiased conclusion compared to a panel of people who seem neutral only because they kept views private.  That undermines the idea that Dr. Smith must be excluded to ensure unbiasedness.

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

This supports Ruiz’s worry rather than counters it.

(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.

Liveliness is not the goal. The issue is unbiased conclusion, so this is mostly irrelevant.

(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.

Fundraising has nothing to do with whether the panel is unbiased.

(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.

This supports Ruiz’s concern, not counters it.

Answer: (A)

MartyMurray · Answer

Yes, that's exactly the issue with (C). Going from "lively discussion" to "unbiased," or even just plain good for the purposes of the panel, requires making an unsupported leap in logic.

Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in publi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in publi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards