Final answer:
When evaluators disagree on a score in the weighted point evaluation method, the least likely resolution would be to use a straw man fallacy as it isn't constructive. They would rather discuss and refine the weights and criteria, potentially even bringing in a third party or averaging the scores.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of using the weighted point evaluation method to assess products, when evaluators disagree on the score of a product, the least likely strategy would be to employ a tactic known as 'straw man.' The straw man fallacy utilizes a weaker version of the position being argued against in order to make the position easier to defeat. This is not a constructive way to resolve disagreements in product evaluation because it does not directly address the actual points of contention. Instead, evaluators are more likely to review the weighting criteria, discuss their viewpoints, and aim to reach a consensus or at least a compromise based on a real understanding of each other's positions and the evaluation criteria.
Evaluators should discuss the scores, considering the product attributes such as abundance, efficiency, and transportation capability, which have been shown to be valued more by evaluators, over less valued attributes like acceptance or the ability to produce heat. If a consensus cannot be reached, a third party may be brought in for an objective opinion, or the scores may be averaged, with the assumption that evaluators' differences average out over several evaluation criteria.
Through discussion, evaluators can
analyze why the scores differed
and refine their scoring in light of the weaknesses and strengths of each argument offered. This iterative process is designed to
bring participants closer to the truth
regarding the fair evaluation of the product.