PrepTest 68, Section 2, Question 12
Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has dangerous side effects has recently been criticized by a prominent physician. However, the physician is employed by the company that manufactures that drug, and hence probably has personal reasons to deny that the drug is dangerous. Therefore, the critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject the book's claims about the drug's side effects.
Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has dangerous side effects has recently been criticized by a prominent physician. However, the physician is employed by the company that manufactures that drug, and hence probably has personal reasons to deny that the drug is dangerous. Therefore, the critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject the book's claims about the drug's side effects.
Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has dangerous side effects has recently been criticized by a prominent physician. However, the physician is employed by the company that manufactures that drug, and hence probably has personal reasons to deny that the drug is dangerous. Therefore, the critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject the book's claims about the drug's side effects.
Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has dangerous side effects has recently been criticized by a prominent physician. However, the physician is employed by the company that manufactures that drug, and hence probably has personal reasons to deny that the drug is dangerous. Therefore, the critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject the book's claims about the drug's side effects.
The reasoning in the journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
It fails to address adequately the possibility that the critique of the book called into question other claims made in the book in addition to the claim that the drug has dangerous side effects.
It takes for granted that anyone even remotely associated with a company that manufactures a drug is unable to fairly weigh evidence concerning possible dangerous side effects of that drug.
It overlooks the possibility that the author of the book was biased for personal reasons in favor of the claim that the drug has dangerous side effects.
It fails to address adequately the possibility that someone who has personal reasons to deny a claim may nonetheless provide legitimate grounds for denying that claim.
It overlooks the possibility that even if a critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject a claim, this failure need not be the result of any personal biases of the author.
0 Comments