PrepTest 131

Incorrect. It's not necessary that the reviewers themselves lack any biases. Each reviewer can have biases, as long as those biases aren't shared among all the reviewers and the paper.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Problem: Scientists have biases which can slant their papers
Solution: Peer review, where other scientists read papers and object to biases they don't share
Result: Biases generally removed from publications

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument raises a problem and proposes a solution, your first consideration should be whether it's ignoring other potential solutions. This is generally the case when the conclusion is that the specific solution must be implemented. Here, however, the conclusion is just that the peer review process "generally" works, so it's not ignoring other solutions.

The second consideration should be whether the solution is actually addressing the problem, or whether it's addressing a separate problem or only part of the problem. Here, the peer review process is said to result in objections to biases "that the[ reviewers] do not share," so it's definitely addressing the problem. Will it address the complete problem and recognize all biases, as the conclusion states? Well, that depends—are there any biases in these papers that are shared by all the reviewers? If there are, then those biases won't be noted and objected to—after all, it's noted that they will only object to biases they don't share.

This solution, therefore, is only a partial solution, not addressing biases that are present in the paper but are also shared by all the peers reviewing it. Since we need to strengthen this argument with a necessary premise, we should look for answers that rule out the possibility that there are biases that'll be missed because they're shared by everyone reviewing the paper.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the reason that peer review is only a partial solution. If we negate this answer—there are some biases that are shared between all scientists—then the argument falls apart, as those biases won't be noted and objected to and therefore removed before publication.

Key Takeaway:
Using the problem/solution framework to help you approach a question can be helpful. Two important considerations when an argument fits this framework:

(1) Does the argument treat the author's preferred solution as a necessary solution (i.e., the only solution)?

(2) Does the solution address the actual problem, and does it offer a partial or complete solution?

Incorrect. The conclusion is limited to discussing whether biases make it into publications, not whether that has an impact on the value of the papers, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about only the removal of slanted interpretations of data, so whether bias in other areas is present is out of scope.

Incorrect. As we noted in our anticipation, it's important to consider whether a proposed solution is treated as necessary, in which case an answer like this one would be correct. However, when the conclusion is that a solution will work—not that it must be implemented—that leaves open the possibility for other solutions to work, as well. This answer, therefore, isn't necessary for the argument.