But in order to understand an issue fully, it is essential to consider such evidence impartially.
=Understand issue fully----evidence impartially: contra
Thus, it is best not to take a strong position on an issue unless one has already considered all important evidence conflicting with that position.
=Take a strong position----all evidence: contra
:Anyone who does not understand an issue fully should avoid taking a strong position on it.
I still think there's a gap there, which is where the answer choice/assumption comes in to play:
1. Understand issue fully -> consider all evidence impartially (that conflicts with your view)
2. conclusion: Take a strong position --> consider all evidence that conflicts with your view
#1 does not link to the conclusion without an assumption, which is the answer choice:
answer: anyone who does not understand the issue fully should avoid taking a strong position.
I'm confused with the wording of the question in that the reasoning conforms
to the answer choice. I think it is really an assumption on which the conclusion depends.