Consumer advocate: The introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good understanding of its social impact. However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. It is obvious, then, that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being tested.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing new drugs now being tested to the marketplace. This is based on the rule that the introduction of a new drug into the market place should depend on our having a good understanding of its social impact. Our understanding of the social impact of a newly marketed antihistamine, however, is not good.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the social understanding of most new drugs now being tested is not good.

A
The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested.
Our understanding of the new antihistamine is not clear. If that level of understanding is better than our understanding of most new drugs, that suggests our understanding of most new drugs is not good.
B
The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.
This doesn’t help establish that there should be a “general reduction” in bringing new drugs to the market.
C
The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.
We don’t know the level of economic success of the new drugs being tested. So, this has no impact.
D
The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.
Chemical similarity does not imply similar levels of understanding concerning the social impact of a drug. Social impact can be entirely separate from the specific chemical makeup of a drug.
E
The new antihistamine should be on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also.
We know the antihistamine should not be on the market. But (E) doesn’t establish that this implies most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market. If you think it does, you’re mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions.

20 comments

Sales manager: The highest priority should be given to the needs of the sales department, because without successful sales the company as a whole would fail.

Shipping manager: There are several departments other than sales that also must function successfully for the company to succeed. It is impossible to give the highest priority to all of them.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The sales manager concludes that the highest priority should be given to the sales department, because the company would fail without successful sales.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The shipping manager counters the sales manager’s argument by showing that he makes an unreasonable assumption. The sales manager assumes that the sales department should be given highest priority because it’s necessary to the company’s success. But the shipping manager points out that many departments are necessary, and giving them all the top priority would be impossible and illogical.

A
that the sales department taken by itself is not critical to the company’s success as a whole

The shipping manager never refutes the claim that the sales department is necessary to the company’s success. She just says that there are other departments that are also necessary to its success.

B
the ambiguity of the term “highest priority”

The shipping manager doesn't make this mistake; she uses the term “highest priority” consistently throughout her argument.

C
that departments other than sales are more vital to the company’s success

The shipping manager never claims that other departments are more important than sales; she just claims that there are other departments that are also necessary to the company’s success.

D
an absurd consequence of its apparent assumption that a department’s necessity earns it the highest priority

The sales manager assumes that a department’s necessity earns it the highest priority. The shipping manager points out an absurd consequence of this assumption by saying that there are many necessary departments, and it makes no sense to give everyone the highest priority.

E
that the sales manager makes a generalization from an atypical case

The shipping manager doesn’t argue that the sales manager makes a generalization from an atypical case. If anything, she argues that the sales department’s necessity is not an atypical case, because there are many necessary departments.


12 comments

People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it. Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes two things:

(1) People with technical ingenuity are usually rewarded for that ingenuity. Why? Because the politically powerful tend to view new technologies as useful for reinforcing their own power.

(2) People with ethical inventiveness are only ever punished for that inventiveness. Why? Because the politically powerful tend to view new ethical ideas as a threat to their power.

Notable Assumptions

The author makes two key assumptions:

(1) When people with political power view something as useful for reinforcing their own power (i.e., new technologies), the people responsible (i.e., those with technical ingenuity) somehow benefit.

(2) When people with political power view something as a threat to their power (i.e., new ethical ideas), the people responsible (i.e., those with ethical inventiveness) somehow always suffer.

A
Those who offer new ways of justifying current political power often reap the benefits of their own innovations.
It’s unclear whether “justifying current political power” is an ethical innovation. If no, then (A) is irrelevant. If yes, then (A) means ethical inventiveness can benefit the inventor, weakening the conclusion that ethical inventiveness brings only pain to the inventor.
B
Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.
This strengthens both claims in the conclusion. The politically powerful believe technically ingenious people are useful to them, so they reward such people. And they believe ethically inventive people are a threat to their power, so they punish such people.
C
Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals.
We want to help show that ethical inventiveness brings pain, while technical ingenuity brings benefits. The fact that these two traits belong to different sets of people tells us nothing about if, or why, one trait would have bad effects while the other would have good effects.
D
New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.
We want to help show that technical ingenuity brings benefits (and that ethical inventiveness brings pain), given the views of politically powerful people. But (D) says technical ingenuity could pose a threat to the politically powerful. If anything, (D) weakens.
E
Many people who possess ethical inventiveness conceal their novel ethical arguments for fear of retribution by the politically powerful.
The conclusion is about the consequences of both ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity. At best, (E) strengthens only the half the conclusion. Even then, (E) merely suggests that some people might be punished, but the conclusion says ethical inventiveness guarantees pain.

5 comments