Q1 - In a recent study of dust-mite allergy

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
Expected: Decreasing dust-mite allergens 69% would alleviate symptoms
Unexpected: Decreasing dust-mite allergens 69% didn't alleviate symptoms

Answer Anticipation:
Anything that would explain why lowering the amount of allergen wouldn't lower symptoms. I'm personally expecting it to say that even a small amount of dust-mite allergen is enough to cause all the symptoms.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If anything, opposite. The argument states bedding is the main source of exposure, so other sources are less important. If the amount of allergen is bedding was lowered and this answer is true, if anything, it makes it even more surprising that there was no reduction in symptoms.

(B) This fact would be true of both groups. Even if people exaggerate their symptoms, the latter group should have been exaggerating a lower level of baseline symptoms, so their self-reported symptoms should have been less than the similarly exaggerating first group.

(C) Out of scope/align without explaining. While this situation may suggest scientists aren't 100% certain what's going on, it definitely doesn't explain what's happening.

(D) Bingo. Reduction must hit 90+% before symptoms go down. Since the study only reduced them by 69%, symptoms weren't expected to be reduced.

(E) Out of scope. This answer does create a similarity between the groups, but it doesn't explain why neither group reported getting better. If anything, one might expect both groups to get a placebo effect! If the situation said that both groups reported lower levels of symptoms at largely equivalent levels, this would be a more tempting answer.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Watch out for answers that align but don't explain (C).

#officialexplanation