Q5 - Statistician: Two major studies

[cc4me19]

When I first did this questions I answered C. When I was answering it I applied the THEREFORE TEST to figure out which one was the main conclusion. The studies are flawed THEREFORE researchers would need to include many more than 1,100 people in a study to detect even a doubling of the rate of Y OR researchers would need to include many more than 1,100 people in a study to detect even a doubling of the rate of Y THEREFORE the studies are flawed. I may be crazy but to me they both sound logically alright. I could be wrong completely, and the only conclusion in this passage could be the main one: that the studies are flawed. and no intermediary conclusion exists. I understand why the answer is B if the main conclusion is that the studies are flawed. So, I guess I wanna see if anyone else has made the same mistake as me and applied the therefore test in this instance?

[bbirdwell]

Hi!! I think the Therefore Test works great in this instance.

As you put it, we have these two options, which I'll re-write here with a slightly different emphasis.

1. The studies are flawed.
THEREFORE
Researchers need to include many more people in the studies than they did.

2. Researchers need to include many more people in the studies than they did.
THEREFORE
The studies are flawed.


Considering #1 above, to say that studies are flawed does not logically lead to the conclusion that more people must be used. After all, we don't know exactly what the flaw was in this case, simply that there was one. Perhaps older people need to be used, or healthier people, or people with a certain diet or disposition. That is to say, we cannot logically conclude a specific solution (more people) to an unnamed flaw.

This is in stark contrast to #2. In #2, we are presented first with the information that the studies, in order to make a relevant detection, would have to include MANY MORE people than they did. This leads directly to the conclusion that, since the studies did not use a sufficient number of people, they are flawed.

[WaltGrace1983]

Hi!! I think the Therefore Test works great in this instance.

As you put it, we have these two options, which I'll re-write here with a slightly different emphasis.

1. The studies are flawed.
THEREFORE
Researchers need to include many more people in the studies than they did.

2. Researchers need to include many more people in the studies than they did.
THEREFORE
The studies are flawed.


Considering #1 above, to say that studies are flawed does not logically lead to the conclusion that more people must be used. After all, we don't know exactly what the flaw was in this case, simply that there was one. Perhaps older people need to be used, or healthier people, or people with a certain diet or disposition. That is to say, we cannot logically conclude a specific solution (more people) to an unnamed flaw.

This is in stark contrast to #2. In #2, we are presented first with the information that the studies, in order to make a relevant detection, would have to include MANY MORE people than they did. This leads directly to the conclusion that, since the studies did not use a sufficient number of people, they are flawed.

I really liked this! So are you saying that there therefore test should be used within its own context? As in, we shouldn't need the original argument to justify the conclusion - the conclusion should exist from the merits of the premises alone?

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

The point of the therefore test is simply to help you differentiate between what's a premise and what's a conclusion. Put the word "therefore" between the two, and whichever full sentence makes sense, the thing after the "therefore" is the conclusion.

[kambizmashhadi]

Hey,

I came up with another way to solve this, in the stimulus, it is mentioned " But these studies are flawed", I can reasonably assume that this sentence is the conclusion of the stimulus since everything else seems to support this statement.Answer choice C seems to be prescriptive, using "should", however, stimulus does not prescribe anything, it only tries to point out the flaw in the surveys.

Am I on the right track?

Thank you

[EmmaL473]

I also chose C because I felt like B was a half-scope answer. Especially because towards the end, it stated that "researchers would need to include many more than 1,100 people in a study to detect even a doubling of the rate of disorder Y", it sounded to me like this is saying a more extensive study is required, whereas B was only right about the studies being flawed part but failed to specify how the studies should be revised

[Laura Damone]

kambizmashhadi was right to eliminate C based on the prescriptive "should." This argument isn't about making a recommendation. It's about making an evaluation: The studies are flawed. C is something one might reasonably conclude from the argument, but it isn't the conclusion made in the argument. That's an important distinction. The task of an ID the Conclusion question is to Identify the conclusion, not to draw a new one.

B isn't half scope because the last sentence is the evidence offered in support of the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. The fact that we'd need way more people in the study is the evidence the statistician is providing that the studies are flawed.

Hope this helps!