In decision-making, what is the purpose of appointing a devil's advocate?

• A. Devil's advocate defends the majority view.
• B. Devil's advocate slows decision unnecessarily.
• C. Devil's advocate disregards evidence.
• D. Assigning a devil's advocate challenges assumptions and promotes critical evaluation.

Answer: (D)

Appointing a devil's advocate serves to challenge assumptions and promote critical evaluation in decision-making. By having someone deliberately question the favored plan, the group surfaces weaknesses, tests the logic, and probes the supporting data. This helps prevent groupthink, ensuring that risks, costs, and alternative options are thoroughly considered rather than accepted at first glance. The goal is to strengthen the decision by exposing blind spots and forcing deeper analysis.

Raising the majority view as the defended position misses the point of the role, which is not to defend a stance but to test it. Slowing the decision can happen, but it's a byproduct, not the purpose, and should be acceptable only if it leads to better reasoning. Disregarding evidence would defeat the purpose of rigorous critique; the devil's advocate should engage with evidence, not ignore it.