Bioethics debate: false results
Tue, Sep 22, 2026 · Week 5 · Genetics of Disease (Medical Interventions)
Today's goal: Debate the ethics of using a diagnostic test that sometimes gives false positives or false negatives.
This is a model of the work you should turn in today. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Note: This is a parallel model on a different scenario. It shows the shape of a strong claim-evidence-reasoning argument so you can build your own. It does not answer today's question about the diagnostic test.\n\nClaim: A cheap home alarm that sometimes sounds when there is no danger and sometimes fails to sound during a real hazard is still ethical to require in apartments, as long as it is paired with regular testing and clear instructions for what to do when it goes off.\n\nEvidence: A false alarm wakes a family for burnt toast, causing annoyance and, over time, a temptation to disable the unit. A missed alarm is far more serious, because carbon monoxide has no smell and a silent detector can let a family sleep through a deadly buildup. Manufacturers can shift this balance by changing the sensor's trigger level, trading fewer nuisance alarms for a higher chance of a missed one, or the reverse. Cheaper units test at lower accuracy than professional systems, but they still catch most real hazards.\n\nReasoning: The two errors do not carry equal weight. A false alarm costs minutes of sleep, while a missed alarm can cost a life, so a detector tuned to be sensitive protects against the worst outcome. Requiring an affordable unit means most homes have some protection instead of none, and the annoyance of occasional false alarms is a reasonable price for that coverage. Testing the unit monthly and teaching residents to evacuate rather than ignore it addresses the weaknesses without removing the protection.\n\nRebuttal: Some argue that an unreliable alarm should not be required, because a family that trusts a faulty unit may feel safe when they are not. But the alternative, requiring no alarm at all, leaves every home fully exposed. The answer is to keep the requirement and add habits that cover its blind spots, such as scheduled testing and a backup plug-in unit, not to abandon the safeguard because it is imperfect.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A parallel worked claim-evidence-reasoning argument, on whether a cheap smoke-and-carbon-monoxide alarm that sometimes false-alarms and sometimes stays silent is ethical to require, with conditions and a rebuttal, modeling the CER format without answering today's own prompt.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Post to Schoology discussion and read two classmates' positions.
Turn in: Worked CER on a parallel case
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Comparing the harms of false positives and false negatives.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.