PrepTest 127

Incorrect. This answer seems to justify Mariah's rebuttal of Joanna's argument. However, Mariah doesn't claim that bias (let alone a mere suspicion of it) would be insufficient grounds to disqualify someone—she claims that Adam isn't biased. As such, this answer doesn't underlie her rebuttal.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
J: Adam's classmates have entered an essay contest, so he shouldn't judge it.

M: Those classmates aren't his friends. However, he has no experience judging essays, so he shouldn't be a judge.

Answer Anticipation:
Mariah's argument has two parts to it—a rebuttal of Joanna's argument, and then a separate argument that agrees with Joanna's conclusion. As such, while an answer justifying the rebuttal could play into the correct answer, it's much more likely that the correct answer will justify Mariah's main point.

That becomes even more likely when analyzing Mariah's rebuttal. Joanna's argument seems to rest on an accusation of bias on Adam's part. Mariah's rebuttal points out a factual error on Joanna's part—Adam isn't biased because the classmates Joanna refers to aren't his friends. Principles support logic, not facts, and so rebutting an argument by calling the underlying premises of an argument into question is unlikely to lead to a principle supporting it.

Joanna's main point, however, is a flawed argument—Adam lacks experience judging essays, so he shouldn't be a judge in this essay contest. That assumes that experience judging essays is a necessary qualification to be a judge in an essay contest. There's no inherent reason that should be the case—maybe people who lack experience are actually better at identifying interesting and powerful essays that don't conform to the norm! In any case, the principle should connect Joanna's premise to her conclusion:

If someone lacks experience critiquing essays, they shouldn't judge an essay contest.

Answer Explanation:
This answer justifies Mariah's argument. She rules Adam out as a judge because he lacks experience, and this answer establishes experience as the "primary" requirement to be a judge.

Key Takeaway:
When someone rebuts an opposing point but agrees with their conclusion, it can be easy to get turned around and have a skewed view of their argument or opinion on the opposing point. Be careful in such a case to fully understand what the second speaker believes and don't just assume that they believe the opposite of the opposing view.

Incorrect. First, Joanna is more focused on bias/objectivity than Mariah. Second, Mariah never "ranks" qualifications for being a judge. Third, neither discusses content expertise, which is distinct from experience critiquing essays.

Incorrect. Mariah's argument against Adam rests on his lack of experience, so this answer cuts against that conclusion. That said, we don't know how Mariah feels about fairness concerns, as she doesn't say that Joanna's focus on bias is bad but rather that Adam here isn't actually biased. If he were, Mariah might want to disqualify him as a judge on those grounds.

Incorrect. Mariah's focus is on expertise, and she doesn't believe bias exists with Adam, so this answer is wrong on two fronts.