Question 18

I am confused about the answer choices. Could you explain each answer choice?

@OwenC and @Shiyi-Zhang, Happy to help. Let's take a look. We're looking for the answer choice that illustrates a principle that matches the columnist's reasoning. The columnist is discussing how to understand an issue fully. She says in order to do so, we should analyze all of the evidence that conflict's with one's stand. Taking a strong position on an issue makes one less likely to consider such evidence, so the columnist argues that taking strong positions should be avoided until unless one has already considered all of the important evidence that conflicts with the position. We're looking for a principle in the answer choices that matches the columnist's sentiment. (A) says, "It is reasonable to take a strong position on an issue if one fully understands the issue and has considered the evidence regarding that issue impartially." It's true that the columnist does conclude that one shouldn't take a strong stance on an issue unless one has considered all of the evidence. However, she does not state that considering all of the evidence and understanding an issue fully is sufficient to justify the act of taking a strong position, so (A) is out because it's confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. (B) says, "To ensure that one has impartially considered the evidence regarding an issue on which one has taken a strong position, one should avoid misinterpreting or ignoring evidence regarding that issue." (B) is discussing details of when one has already taken a strong position, and this is not in-line with the conclusion of the stimulus of not taking strong stands on issues. (B) is simply telling us that we should not misinterpret information, but one of the premises of the argument already says that this will happen if one takes a strong position. Thus, (B) is out. (C) says, "Anyone who does not understand an issue fully should avoid taking a strong position on it." This is just what we're looking for. (C) is saying one shouldn't take a strong position if one doesn't understand an issue fully. This mirrors the argument's conclusion, so this is the correct answer choice. (D) says, "One should try to understand an issue fully if doing so will help one to avoid misinterpreting or ignoring evidence regarding that issue." The whole point of the columnist's argument is that one should not take a strong stand if one doesn't understand an issue fully. (D) does not mention not taking a strong stand, so it's missing a big piece of the argument. Thus, (D) is out. (E) says, "It is reasonable to take a strong position on an issue only if there is important evidence conflicting with that position." We have no information in the stimulus that tells us when it's reasonable to take a strong position on an issue. Thus, we can get rid of (E). Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!