#24 - In a recent study of arthritis, researchers tried but

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point-FIB, CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

In a recent study of arthritis, researchers failed to find a correlation between arthritis pain and the weather conditions most commonly associated with such pain. What they found was that arthritis sufferers who were convinced of the existence of such a correlation gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between the occurrence of the weather condition and the increased intensity of the pain.

The question stem asks you to fill in the blank with an appropriate answer. While this is not one of the most common question types on the test, Fill in the Blanks almost always indicate the presence of a Main Point question. Note that the placement of the blank is at the very end of the stimulus, and the sentence it completes begins with the conclusion indicator “thus.” Therefore, you should fill the blank with the answer choice that best represents the main point of the argument. To achieve this goal, look for contextual clues in the stimulus revealing the direction of the argument and the author’s intent.

The first two sentences, when taken together, contain all the information required to fill in the blank at the end of the question. From the outset, the author rejects the existence of any correlation between the intensity of arthritis pain and the weather conditions commonly associated with increased pain. Immediately after, she describes inconsistencies in the accounts given by arthritis sufferers who believed in such a correlation. Clearly, the author feels that no causal link exists between weather conditions and arthritis pain, and that the arthritis sufferers are mistaken in their beliefs about such a correlation. The last sentence then prefaces the blank by saying, “thus, this study______.” The most logical answer would be one suggesting that the arthritis sufferers’ beliefs are unfounded.

Answer choice (A): Although this answer choice describes a plausible hypothesis given the varying accounts of the time delay between the occurrence of the weather condition and the increased intensity of the pain experienced by arthritis sufferers, it ignores the assertion made in the beginning of the stimulus—researchers found no correlation between pain intensity and weather conditions. Therefore, the weather need not affect arthritis sufferers at all, despite any beliefs to the contrary. Because this answer choice fails the Fact Test, it is incorrect.

Remember—Main Point questions are a subcategory of Must Be True questions and thus fall into the First Family of question types. The correct answer choice must be true according to the stimulus (and also summarize the author’s point).
Answer choice (B): This answer choice suggests that arthritis sufferers’ beliefs about the causes of the pain they feel may affect their assessment of the intensity of that pain:

Cause Effect

Beliefs about causes of pain Arthritis pain

However, just because the study rejects the notion that weather conditions affect arthritis pain does not mean that one’s beliefs about the causes of arthritis pain affect the intensity of such pain. The study provides no comparison of the pain intensity or delays experienced by believers and non-believers—the information we have pertains only to the inconsistent accounts given by those who believe that weather affects their pain. Had the study revealed that those convinced of the existence of a correlation experienced pain differently than those who were not so convinced, this would have been a useful comparison to support the conclusion in answer choice (B).

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Given the researcher’s failure to find any correlation between weather conditions and arthritis pain, those still convinced of such a correlation must be mistaken in their beliefs.

Answer choice (D): Given that the study found no correlation between the intensity of arthritis pain and weather conditions, there is no proof that weather-induced arthritis pain actually exists. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to conclude that some people are more susceptible to such pain than are others.

Answer choice (E): Just because one study found no connection between weather and arthritis pain does not mean that scientific investigation of such a connection is impossible. This answer choice exaggerates the facts and makes a broader statement that is not supported by the stimulus.

[mkuo]

Hi,

Why is it logical to conclude that these arthritis sufferers are imagining the correlation they assert to exist? That seems very extreme to me.

So these people are convinced of such correlation. They gave widely varying accounts the events. Couldn't it be possible that they are just different in their susceptibilities to this disease? Or better yet, (B) which can explain the "widely varying accounts" based on their beliefs.

To immediately reject the possibility of such correlation seems a bit overboard... unless I'm missing something from the stem.

Could someone please point out what I missed?

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. In that one, the referenced arthritis sufferers were convinced of a correlation in spite of the fact that researchers were unable to find any correlation between pain intensity and the weather factors listed. I agree that attributing their beliefs to imagination seems extreme, but keep in mind that the answer choice softens up the claim by saying that the findings suggest that the arthritis sufferers are imagining it. If it had instead said proves ,or demonstrates, that would be too extreme.

I hope that's helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[mkuo]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation.

So if using suggest softens it up, why is (C) preferred over (D)? (D) was my second choice.

While (C) quickly rules out correlation based on accounts that are too widely varied, (D) suggests an explanation that could accommodate "widely varying acconts".

Is it because the stem is worded heavily on what the arthritis suffers think they know? I feel a bit as if the author is already leaning towards such correlation does not exist; on the other hand I feel it's inappropriate to draw that conclusion (C).

As always, your explanations are more than helpful! Thanks again!

Mike

[Steve Stein]

Hey Mike,

The numbers reported by the arthritis sufferers reflected no correlation that could be found by the researchers. This doesn't specifically suggest that people have various susceptibilities to weather factors --it suggests that there might not be any real susceptibility to begin with.

I hope that's helpful--this is a tough one. Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[olivia.k.chin]

For this question about the study on the correlation btwn arthritis pain intensity and features of the weather, I was deciding between answer B and C but ultimately chose B (C is the correct answer). Between the two, I chose B simply because of the gentler language.

I also think that C might not work because there may still be a correlation between arthritis and weather even though the study participants gave widely varying accounts of the time delay btwn the relevant feature of the weather and the increased intensity of pain. Because for some arthritis sufferers, it takes more time for their joints to be affected than for other arthritis sufferers.

Any thoughts on how to decide between the two answers, which seem so similar to me?

[Ron Gore]

Hi Olivia!

First, I wouldn't necessarily say that answer choice (B) has softer language than answer choice (C), which includes the word "suggests." So, the answer doesn't tells us that this have been proven, or even that it's likely. Rather, it just appears to be a possibility or it is something to think about, which is what "suggests" means in this context.

As to answer choice (B) more specifically, it puts the focus on the accuracy of the sufferer's perceptions concerning the intensity of their pain, rather than the cause of their pain, which is the actual focus of the argument. The issue is not whether they are overestimating their pain level, but rather whether they are improperly ascribing their increase in pain to a certain cause.

For answer choice (C), you're concern was your view that this choice entirely discounts any correlation between the weather and the sufferer's pain. But that's not the case. The argument leaves open the possibility that the sufferer attributed their increase in pain to one aspect of the weather, when it actually correlated better to some other aspect of weather. But even aside from that scenario, if we find that the weather elements pointed out by the arthritis sufferers don't actually match up in terms of timing, then we should at least consider the possibility that they're imaging the correlations. That's all answer choice (C) is saying.

Please let me know if I can be of further help.

Thanks!

Ron

[Rita]

Hi,

Could you please explain why A is incorrect? Participants in the study gave widely varying accounts of the time delay, so doesn't that indicate that weather affects certain sufferers more quickly than others? Is the idea that because the study didn't find a correlation, the study itself doesn't indicate anything about the affect of weather on participants, even if their individual assertions might?

Thanks,
Rita

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Rita,

There is no correlation at all; that means pain intensity and weather are not related to each other. If it was that it impacts some more quickly than others, there would be a correlation between some weather feature and pain intensity, even though the time period isn't identical for everyone. That's not what happened here, though; instead, they found no correlation. The people with arthritis are likely wrong, misperceiving a relationship when there really isn't one. Does that help?

[Rita]

Hi Emily,

I'm struggling with the idea that "the researchers found no correlation" means "there is no correlation". In other questions, this is often pointed out as a flaw in the reasoning - the fact that a correlation hasn't been found shouldn't mean one doesn't exist! Can you explain why that's a logical assumption to make in this particular case, but not others?

Thank you so much!
Rita