- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:00 am
#35105
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—#%. The correct answer choice is (D)
Your task in this Flaw in the Reasoning question is to select the answer that most accurately
describes the flaw in the journalist’s argument.
Premise: newspapers generally report on only those scientific studies whose findings
sound dramatic.
Premise: newspaper stories about small observational studies, which are somewhat
unreliable, are more frequent than newspaper stories about large randomized
trials, which generate stronger scientific evidence
Conclusion: thus, a small observational study must be more likely to have dramatic
findings than a large randomized trial
This argument implied that since small observational studies are somewhat unreliable, then if a
newspaper is reporting on the study it must be because of its dramatic findings rather than because
of its scientific reliability. However, the stimulus gave you no information regarding how many
small studies versus large randomized trials there are to report. It may be the case that the large
randomized trials are performed less frequently than small observational studies, in which case the
difference in reporting could be based merely on that difference in availability, rather than on some
difference in the dramatic quality of the findings.
The correct answer in this Method of Reasoning question will describe this logical flaw in the
journalist’s argument. The incorrect answers will describe some method of reasoning that did not
occur in the stimulus, or will describe reasoning that appeared in the stimulus but was not logically
flawed.
Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect because the lesser reliability of the small observational
studies was a premise of the argument, presented as a fact without support, rather than an inference
based on the source argument against the reporters.
Answer choice (B): The argument did not fail to consider this possibility. As to the small studies, it
stated that a small observational study is “somewhat less reliable,” leaving open the possibility its
findings are strong, though less reliable than a large randomized trial. Also, the argument states that
both the small studies and large trials are reported, permitting the inference that at least one of the
large randomized studies has dramatic findings.
Answer choice (C): This choice is a great example of an Method of Reasoning answer choice that
is so abstract it’s hard to even understand what the choice means, let alone consider whether it is
correct. When faced with a choice like this, be sure to anchor the vague language of the choice to
something specific in the stimulus, so that you can put the choice in context. Here, the claim about
the scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic was that they are the only type of scientific
study generally reported. The claims made about small observational studies were that they are
somewhat less reliable than large randomized trials, and that they are reported more frequently than
large randomized trials. The argument does not confuse these claims, as alleged in this choice.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The journalist infers that since small
observational studies are somewhat less reliable than large randomized trials, then the only reason
the small studies are reported more frequently is because their findings are more dramatic. However,
this conclusion ignores the possibility that the higher frequency of reporting on small studies is
in keeping with the proportion of all studies they represent. If small studies are performed more
frequently than large trials, that could explain the higher frequency with which small studies are
reported.
Answer choice (E): This answer is incorrect because it is inconsistent with a premise of the
argument, and is not material to the conclusion, which focused on why small observational studies
are reported more frequently.
Flaw in the Reasoning—#%. The correct answer choice is (D)
Your task in this Flaw in the Reasoning question is to select the answer that most accurately
describes the flaw in the journalist’s argument.
Premise: newspapers generally report on only those scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic. Premise: newspaper stories about small observational studies, which are somewhat unreliable, are more frequent than newspaper stories about large randomized trials, which generate stronger scientific evidence Conclusion: thus, a small observational study must be more likely to have dramatic findings than a large randomized trialThis argument implied that since small observational studies are somewhat unreliable, then if a
newspaper is reporting on the study it must be because of its dramatic findings rather than because
of its scientific reliability. However, the stimulus gave you no information regarding how many
small studies versus large randomized trials there are to report. It may be the case that the large
randomized trials are performed less frequently than small observational studies, in which case the
difference in reporting could be based merely on that difference in availability, rather than on some
difference in the dramatic quality of the findings.
The correct answer in this Method of Reasoning question will describe this logical flaw in the
journalist’s argument. The incorrect answers will describe some method of reasoning that did not
occur in the stimulus, or will describe reasoning that appeared in the stimulus but was not logically
flawed.
Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect because the lesser reliability of the small observational
studies was a premise of the argument, presented as a fact without support, rather than an inference
based on the source argument against the reporters.
Answer choice (B): The argument did not fail to consider this possibility. As to the small studies, it
stated that a small observational study is “somewhat less reliable,” leaving open the possibility its
findings are strong, though less reliable than a large randomized trial. Also, the argument states that
both the small studies and large trials are reported, permitting the inference that at least one of the
large randomized studies has dramatic findings.
Answer choice (C): This choice is a great example of an Method of Reasoning answer choice that
is so abstract it’s hard to even understand what the choice means, let alone consider whether it is
correct. When faced with a choice like this, be sure to anchor the vague language of the choice to
something specific in the stimulus, so that you can put the choice in context. Here, the claim about
the scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic was that they are the only type of scientific
study generally reported. The claims made about small observational studies were that they are
somewhat less reliable than large randomized trials, and that they are reported more frequently than
large randomized trials. The argument does not confuse these claims, as alleged in this choice.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The journalist infers that since small
observational studies are somewhat less reliable than large randomized trials, then the only reason
the small studies are reported more frequently is because their findings are more dramatic. However,
this conclusion ignores the possibility that the higher frequency of reporting on small studies is
in keeping with the proportion of all studies they represent. If small studies are performed more
frequently than large trials, that could explain the higher frequency with which small studies are
reported.
Answer choice (E): This answer is incorrect because it is inconsistent with a premise of the
argument, and is not material to the conclusion, which focused on why small observational studies
are reported more frequently.