Text 1: Social epistemologist Dr. Anna Wells studies testimony. "We couldn't know much without relying on others' reports," Wells writes. "Testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge. We must generally trust others' word."
Text 2: Philosopher Dr. David Park examines testimony conditions. "Not all testimony is equally credible," Park observes. "Institutional position, track record, and interests affect reliability. Critical assessment, not blanket trust, is epistemically responsible."
How does Park's analysis refine Wells's claims about testimony?
By arguing testimony is never reliable
By adding conditions that should modulate trust in particular testimonies
By claiming we can know everything independently
By denying that institutions exist
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wells argues for general trust in testimony. Park adds discriminating conditions—not all testimony equally credible. Trust should be modulated by circumstances.
- Evidence: Park: "Critical assessment, not blanket trust."
- Reasoning: General reliability doesn't mean undiscriminating acceptance.
- Conclusion: Park adds conditions for differential credibility assessment.
Choice A is incorrect because Park discusses when testimony is credible. Choice C is incorrect because Park's critique isn't that drastic. Choice D is incorrect because Park mentions institutional position.