Announcement for a television program: Are female physicians more sensitive than male physicians to the needs of women patients? To get the answer, we’ll ask physicians of both sexes this question. Tune in tomorrow.

Summarize Argument

The announcement claims that surveying female and male physicians can answer a question about how sensitive each is to the needs of their patients.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This reasoning is flawed because the source for the TV show’s potential claim is biased. If you ask a physician how sensitive they are to the needs of their patients, they will probably answer favorably about themselves. However, if you ask women patients, they are more likely to answer without bias. Thus, if the television program proceeds to base its claim about the sensitivity of physicians on the reports of physicians themselves, its conclusion will likely not be very accurate.

A
Physicians are in general unwilling to describe the treatment style of other physicians.

Our argument never says that the physicians being interviewed will describe other physicians' treatment style. Additionally, treatment style is not necessarily analogous to sensitivity toward patients, so this would not answer the question at hand.

B
There still are fewer women than men who are physicians, so a patient might not have the opportunity to choose a woman as a physician.

The proportion of female doctors compared to male doctors does not change how sensitive each gender is to their patients. Thus, this answer choice does not address the TV show’s question.

C
Those who are best able to provide answers to the question are patients, rather than physicians.

This AC addresses the biased source by highlighting which source would be appropriate for the TV show to use in answering its question. Because doctors are more likely to answer favorably about themselves, the TV show should consult someone less biased, such as patients.

D
Since medical research is often performed on men, not all results are fully applicable to women as patients.

Irrelevant. This stimulus deals with doctor-patient interactions, not with medical research. Therefore, this AC does not address the argument, much less the flaw.

E
Women as patients are now beginning to take a more active role in managing their care and making sure that they understand the medical alternatives.

Even if this were true, it has nothing to do with how sensitive a doctor is to a patient’s needs. Therefore, it does not address the argument or its flaw.


8 comments

Roxanne: To protect declining elephant herds from poachers seeking to obtain ivory, people concerned about such endangered species should buy no new ivory. The new ivory and old ivory markets are entirely independent, however, so purchasing antique ivory provides no incentive to poachers to obtain more new ivory. Therefore, only antique ivory—that which is at least 75 years old—can be bought in good conscience.

Salvador: Since current demand for antique ivory exceeds the supply, many people who are unconcerned about endangered species but would prefer to buy antique ivory are buying new ivory instead. People sharing your concern about endangered species, therefore, should refrain from buying any ivory at allthereby ensuring that demand for new ivory will drop.

Speaker 1 Summary
Roxanne argues that people who want to protect elephants from poachers should only buy antique ivory. This is because there are separate markets for new ivory and antique ivory, so buying antique ivory doesn’t increase the demand for new ivory. Thus, although new ivory is harmful, buying antique ivory doesn’t incentivize poaching.

Speaker 2 Summary
Salvador argues that people who want to protect elephants should not buy any ivory at all. Why? There’s more demand for antique ivory than supply, so some people buy new ivory instead because antique ivory is too expensive. By not buying any ivory at all, people can lower the demand for antique ivory, therefore redirecting some new-ivory sales and reducing the demand for poaching.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Roxanne and Salvador disagree about whether buying antique ivory threatens elephants.

A
there are substances that can serve as satisfactory substitutes for ivory in its current uses
Neither Roxanne nor Salvador mentions any substances that can substitute for ivory. The discussion is about antique versus new ivory, not ivory versus something else.
B
decreased demand for antique ivory would cause a decrease in demand for new ivory
Roxanne claims that the demand for antique ivory is unrelated to the demand for new ivory. Salvador argues that lowering the demand for antique ivory can lower the demand for new ivory by redirecting some buyers. This is the point of disagreement.
C
people should take steps to avert a threat to the continued existence of elephant herds
Roxanne and Salvador both discuss only what people should do if they want to help protect elephants. Neither directly states that people should protect elephants, but it would be fair to assume that they both agree it’s a good idea. Either way, no disagreement here.
D
a widespread refusal to buy new ivory will have a substantial effect on the survival of elephants
Neither speaker talks about how impactful a refusal to buy new ivory would be. Even Roxanne, who proposes a boycott of new ivory as a way to protect elephants, doesn’t specify how much this could do to help the species.
E
people concerned about endangered species should refuse to buy ivory objects that are less than 75 years old
Roxanne agrees with this, and so does Salvador. Roxanne states that people with this concern should not buy ivory less than 75 years old. Salvador goes even further and says that those people should not buy any ivory at all, which includes new ivory.

34 comments

Antarctic seals dive to great depths and stay submerged for hours. They do not rely solely on oxygen held in their lungs, but also store extra oxygen in their blood. Indeed, some researchers hypothesize that for long dives these seals also store oxygenated blood in their spleens.

Summarize Argument
Researchers hypothesize that seals store oxygenated blood in their spleens. No support is provided for this claim.

Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume that oxygenated blood can be stored in the spleen. They also assume that seals have some reason for doing so.

A
Horses are known to store oxygenated blood in their spleens for use during exertion.
Horses can store oxygenated blood in their spleens. This means that seals—another mammal—might be able to store oxygenated blood in their spleens, too.
B
Many species of seal can store oxygen directly in their muscle tissue.
The spleen isn’t a muscle. We therefore don’t care whether or not seals can store oxygen in their muscle tissue.
C
The oxygen contained in the seals’ lungs and bloodstream alone would be inadequate to support the seals during their dives.
Seals need to store oxygen somewhere besides their lungs and bloodstream. The spleen is one such place oxygen could be stored.
D
The spleen is much larger in the Antarctic seal than in aquatic mammals that do not make long dives.
Why do Antarctic seals have enlarged spleens? Perhaps for storing oxygenated blood.
E
The spleens of Antarctic seals contain greater concentrations of blood vessels than are contained in most of their other organs.
This implies that Antarctic seals’ spleens are specially designed for storing oxygenated blood. Thus, there’s good reason to believe they really do store oxygenated blood in their spleens.

113 comments