Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTwo-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Consider the following debate between two professionals regarding criminal justice reform.

Judge Harmon: Risk-assessment algorithms used in criminal sentencing inevitably reflect the historical prejudices present in their training data. Because these systems perpetuate systemic inequalities under the guise of objectivity, we must suspend their use to prevent the further exacerbation of these disparities.

Data Scientist Lin: I agree that current algorithms reflect historical biases. However, human judges exhibit even greater implicit bias. Since reverting to a purely human sentencing system would be demonstrably more prejudiced, suspending the algorithms would actually worsen the very disparities you wish to mitigate.

On which of the following propositions do Judge Harmon and Data Scientist Lin hold opposing views?

  1. A
    Current risk-assessment algorithms used in criminal sentencing reflect historical prejudices found within their training data.
  2. B
    Any sentencing system that perpetuates systemic disparities should be permanently banned from the criminal justice system.
  3. Suspending the use of risk-assessment algorithms in criminal sentencing would successfully prevent the further exacerbation of systemic disparities.Answer
  4. D
    Human judges exhibit a greater degree of implicit bias than do the risk-assessment algorithms currently used in sentencing.
  5. E
    The training data used to develop risk-assessment algorithms for criminal sentencing can eventually be purged of historical prejudices.

Answer

The proposition that suspending the use of risk-assessment algorithms in criminal sentencing would successfully prevent the further exacerbation of systemic disparities.
The correct answer accurately captures the core disagreement regarding the consequences of Judge Harmon's proposed solution. Judge Harmon asserts that suspending the algorithms is necessary 'to prevent the further exacerbation of these disparities.' In contrast, Data Scientist Lin argues that because human judges are even more biased, suspending the algorithms 'would actually worsen the very disparities you wish to mitigate.' Therefore, one speaker believes the suspension will prevent exacerbation, while the other believes it will actively cause it.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Judge Harmon's argument to determine their conclusion and core premise.
Harmon concludes that risk-assessment algorithms must be suspended. The stated reason is that doing so will prevent the further exacerbation of systemic disparities.
Establishing the first speaker's exact stance is necessary to find the point of conflict.
2
Analyze Data Scientist Lin's response to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.
Lin agrees that the algorithms are biased but argues that human judges are worse. Therefore, Lin concludes that suspending the algorithms would actually worsen the disparities.
Identifying the second speaker's counter-argument reveals the core issue in dispute.
3
Evaluate the options using the 'Agree/Disagree' test to isolate the point at issue.
Harmon believes suspension prevents the exacerbation of disparities (Yes). Lin believes suspension worsens those disparities (No). Therefore, they hold opposing views on the outcome of the suspension.
The correct answer must be a proposition that elicits a clear 'Yes' from one speaker and a clear 'No' from the other.

Key Concept

Identifying the exact point of disagreement in a two-speaker dialogue by analyzing overlapping claims and applying the Agree/Disagree test.
Rate this question

Topics

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

More questions from this topic