Question

Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review. It is claimed that this practice delays public access to potentially beneficial information that, in extreme instances, could save lives. Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own. Therefore, 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. The argument assumes that (A) unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur (B) anyone who does not serve on a medical review panel does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research findings (C) the general public does not have access to the medical journals in which research findings are published (D) all medical research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review (E) peer review panels are sometimes subject to political and professional pressures that can make their judgments less than impartial

Short answer

The argument assumes (B) that the public lacks the expertise to evaluate medical research findings independently.

Step-by-step solution

Identify the Conclusion of the Argument

The argument concludes that waiting for a medical journal to publish research findings after peer review is necessary to protect the public from making decisions based on potentially substandard research.

Understand the Reasoning

The reasoning suggests that prepublication peer review is necessary because it helps prevent erroneous and harmful information from reaching the public. It implies that the public cannot evaluate medical claims correctly by themselves, thus the peer review acts as a safeguard.

Define the Assumptions

An assumption is an unstated premise that supports the argument’s conclusion. The conclusion relies on the assumption that the public is incapable of evaluating medical research without the intervention of peer review.

Analyze the Answer Choices

Evaluate each provided answer option to see which aligns with the assumption identified in the previous step. - (A) Suggests peer review only happens through medical journals, but doesn't directly support the conclusion's protection aspect. - (B) Suggests non-experts can't evaluate research, directly supporting the argument's assumption. - (C) Does not relate directly to the incapability of public evaluation. - (D) States a fact about all findings but does not support the protection aspect. - (E) Concerns the impartiality of peer reviews, unrelated to public incapability.

Choose the Best Answer

The assumption that directly supports the argument's conclusion about public protection by peer review is that the public does not have the expertise to evaluate medical findings on their own. The best answer fitting this assumption is (B).

Key concepts

Understanding the Peer Review Process

The peer review process is essential in the field of science and medicine. It ensures that the research findings are scrutinized before they are made public. In this process, a panel of experts evaluates the quality, validity, and relevance of a research paper.
These experts check the research for accuracy, sound methodology, and logical reasoning. This acts as a filter to catch any errors or biases that the original researchers may have overlooked.
By having multiple reviewers look at the same study, it increases the chances of identifying any flaws, ensuring that only research of the highest quality makes it to the public domain. Understanding this process helps us appreciate why a delay occurs between the completion of research and its publication. Although frustrating at times, this delay is crucial for maintaining the integrity of academic publications and protecting public health.

Evaluating Medical Research - The Essentials

Medical research evaluation is the process of determining whether research findings are credible and relevant. It involves critical assessments to ensure that conclusions drawn from medical studies are valid and reliable.
Key elements include:

• Checking the study's methodology: Ensuring that it uses a sound design to answer the research question.
• Statistical analysis: Assessing whether appropriate statistical methods were employed to derive the conclusions.
• Conflict of interest: Evaluating whether the researchers have any financial or personal interests that could have influenced the study.

Evaluating these aspects helps safeguard against flawed or biased research findings. In this context, peer review acts as a checkpoint, ensuring that medical research meets high ethical and scientific standards. This is critical, as inaccurate medical information can have severe implications for patient care and policy decisions.

Critical Thinking Skills in Law Exams and Beyond

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in law exams, such as the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. It's not just about understanding the law, but also about evaluating arguments and assessing assumptions.
This involves analyzing arguments for validity, identifying fallacies, and understanding unstated premises. To strengthen critical thinking skills:

• Focus on understanding what is being argued versus what is being assumed.
• Practice identifying the core argument's conclusion and the supporting and opposing reasons.
• Consider alternative viewpoints and counterarguments.

These skills are valuable not only in law exams but also in reading and interpreting the quality of information. In today's world, where information is abundant but not always accurate, critical thinking allows individuals to discern claims critically, much like a peer review process in medical research.