Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.
The conclusion of the argument is: waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research.
Answer choice (A) states: "unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur."
Does this strengthen the argument? Yes. We can rewrite answer choice (A): "If peer review occurs, then medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal."
P: PR ==> MRFMJ not MRFMJ ==> not PR
This answer choice eliminates any other possible way for peer review to occur other than a medical journal publishing it. If there was another way for peer review to occur, then it is not necessarily true that it must be necessary to wait until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review for peer review to have occurred.
However, answer choice (A) states that having the research findings brought to peer review by a medical journal is necessary for peer review to occur.
Does the negation of answer choice (A) make the argument fall apart? Yes.
Negation: If peer review occurs, medical research findings are not necessarily brought to peer review by a medical journal.
This introduces the possibility that there are other ways peer review could occur than having to have the findings brought forth by a medical journal. If this were true, then it is no longer necessarily true that we must wait until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research, since peer review would no longer require publication in medical journals.
Thus, if answer choice (A) were negated, then the conclusion of the argument will no longer necessarily follow.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
awashingDecember 31, 2016
Hello, the explanation provided makes perfect sense but (B) also seemed to strengthen the argument in a way too that would allow the public to be able to evaluate any research findings, and thus not need protection from making medical decisions based on the research. Can you explain why answer choice (B) is wrong and why my approach erred? I thought it may be because 'anyone' is too broad, making the choice irrelevant.
