#21 - Specific Reference, Weaken

[Adam Tyson]

I think this is a very reasonable analysis, jojapaych. Good work!

Another element of answer E that has been overlooked in this discussion so far is that it deals with only a small subset of researchers, those who start a trial with no preference. The passage told us that most researchers actually start with some preference, whether based on evidence or intuition. Evidence about what the small minority of researchers do or do not do is not going to have much impact either way!

[cmd036@bucknell.edu]

I am a bit confused on a few parts of this question.

Is answer (A) correct because it is saying that comparative trials are intended to confirm preferences in cases when there is already a general consensus? Which would seemingly weaken the authors point that comparative trials and clinical equipose are best suited for trials when there is no general consensus?

In paragraph 3 , the author says that "One reason for conducting comparative clinical trials is to resolve a current or imminent conflict in the expert clinical community over what treatment is to be preferred for patients with a given illness."

I feel like saying "One reason" instead of "the main reason" leaves open the possibility that scenarios like option (A) could occur under her ideal of Clinical Equipose.

Is there somewhere else in the stimulus where option (A) more clearly weakens her arguements in paragraphs 3 and 4?

Thanks

[Jeff Wren]

Hi cmd,

As you point out, the author mentions that one reason for these comparative clinical trials is to resolve a debate within the expert community (meaning that there isn't a consensus on those particular issues)(lines 38-42).

In those situations, the lack of consensus is what makes conducting these clinical trials ethical under the author's framework of clinical equipoise. (lines 48-53). In other words, even if a particular doctor/researcher has a personal preference for one type of treatment, since there are other experts who disagree, it is still ethical to conduct these clinical trials (since the "correct" treatment hasn't actually been established yet).

If it is true (as stated in Answer A) that most comparative trials are simply confirming an already established consensus rather than resolving a lack of consensus/debate in the field, then the author's justification for using clinical equipoise is weakened.

Remember that weaken answers do not have to completely destroy an argument, they simply have to case doubt on it, which Answer A does here.