CR - Genetics (pg 70)

[JbhB682]

Hello Experts -

Just to test whether my critical reasoning is fully accurate regarding option D :
-- Had 80 % been instead 100 %
and
-- Had 10 % been instead 0 %

Would it in that case, with these new %'s -- would option D with these new %'s in that case be an assumption ?

I still think it would not be an assumption because it's quite possible that ALL the women who have been tested for these two genes ALSO may still want a second opinion with mammograms as well.

Because we are not told about the reliability of these tests for the 2 genes, we can't say

-- if the women will STILL not go for a second opinion (via mammogram tests)

Also, given we don't know about the reliability of these tests for these two genes (perhaps a lot of false positives or false negatives ?) -- we can't say whether these tests even with these updated percentages will help in "Assessing a woman's individual risk of breast cancer " -- we will need to understand the reliability (how many false positives or false negatives) of these tests for these two genes vs. the reliability (how many false positives or false negatives) of mammograms tests

Thoughts ?

[esledge]

With your proposed changes to the percents, (D) would become a stronger strengthener, but while every Assumption must strengthen, not every strengthener is a necessary assumption. (Like how all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. Or how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.)

The key word for assumptions is "necessary": with your proposed changes, (D) becomes even more strict, and it become even harder to show that (D) is necessary for the argument to stand. (And I agree with what you said about how concerns would remain about reliability of the tests and the need for follow-up testing.)