This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 2. c) It’s impossible to tell. We do expect physicians to put their own interests aside and look after the interests of their patients first. Physicians can therefore be in conflicts of interest. The problem with this case is that we don’t know enough about how the physician “works with” the chiropractor. If the physician has a close relationship with the chiropractor, then he may be in a conflict. However, if the relationship is not particularly close, then he is not. See pp. 34–35. 3. a) Yes. The physician starts by saying that there are lots of possible treatments, but then he only gives one. What are the ones he’s leaving out? Why does he leave them out? These omissions slant the argument. See pp. 36–38. 4. b) No. It’s possible the physician is exaggerating. Perhaps there aren’t lots of possible treatments. Or, perhaps chiropractic treatment won’t actually help. But, as given, it seems to be a fair representation of facts, so there is no slanting by distortion. See pp. 38–40. 5. b) It does not, and should. It does not consider opposing views, and it probably should. After all, there are possibilities other than chiropractic care for back pain, as the physician notes. The physician may have reasons for rejecting them, but those should have been considered clearly. See pp. 40–41. Passage 8 1. c) It’s impossible to tell. We really don’t know enough about the psychologist to tell if there are any vested interests here. After all, she might do a lot of work for video game companies or be a paid consultant, which would imply that she has a vested financial interest in the argument. On the other hand, she may be an independent analyst, in which case she probably does not. There really isn’t enough information given to be able to tell. See pp. 31–33. 2. b) No. While it is possible for a psychologist to be in a conflict of interest, this usually applies when the psychologist is providing treatment to patients. In this case, the psychologist is arguing about what the evidence does and does not show regarding video game violence. We don’t expect such a person to be more or less detached than an ordinary person making the same argument, so there is no conflict. See pp. 34–35. 3. b) No. You might think that there are significant omissions here, as the psychologist summarizes the studies rather than discussing them in detail. While that’s true, it’s not clear what discussing that detail would do with respect to the conclusion she’s arguing for, namely that it’s unclear whether video-game violence causes real-world violence. What’s important is that she discusses studies in favour of a link and studies against such a link, thus providing a balanced case. This suggests that the argument is not slanted by omission. See pp. 36–38....
View Full Document
- Summer '09
- Logic, Conflict of interest, Vesting