Journalist: Newspapers generally report

Answer choices

1. A

   Not "Ad Hominem"1% picked this

   It casts doubt on the reliability of a study by questioning the motives of

   There's no "a study" for the author to question. This is a conversation about different types of studies, but there isn't "a study" mentioned at that any point, and the author certainly never calls out the motives of any researchers / experimenters. Undermining a point of view by attacking the source's motives is a famous flaw called Ad Hominem.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match11% picked this

   It fails to consider that even if a study's findings sound dramatic, the scientific evidence for those

   This answer choice is attacking an argument that would sound like, "Since newspapers only report dramatic findings, they must usually be presenting findings that are very speculative from a scientific point of view." Our author never implied that certain findings were weakly or strongly supported, so there are no possible objections to be made by saying, "Even if X is true, the evidence for the findings might be strongly supported!" Our author's conclusion is only about whether or not you can deduce that small studies more often have dramatic findings than do large studies.

   11%
3. C

   Not Confusing Those Two14% picked this

   It confuses a claim about scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic with a similar claim

   The author is not confusing two claims, but rather combining a claim about dramatic findings with a claim about small studies in order to derive her (erroneous) conclusion. Newspapers more likely to have dramatic + Newspapers more likely to have small studies ------------------------------------------------------- Thus, Small studies more likely to have dramatic

   14%
4. D

   Correct61% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that small observational studies are far more common than

   Why this is right

   Here we got our alternate explanation for why newspapers more commonly have stories about small studies than about large trials: there are just far more small studies. If we said "Prisons only lock up criminals, and prisoners are more frequently right handed than left handed. Thus, right handed people must be more likely to end up a criminal", it would be vulnerable to the same objection -- no, there are just far more right handed people than left handed people in the general population. This is an example of the famous % vs. # flaw (i.e. Relative vs. Absolute). The evidence was about raw numbers (stories about small studies are more frequent), while the conclusion was about relative likelihood.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   61%
5. E

   Not Reverse Causality13% picked this

   It fails to rule out the possibility that a study's having findings that sound dramatic is an effect rather than a cause

   This is the time sequence of what the author is talking about in the evidence: 1. A study is conducted 2. A study finishes 3. A study publicizes its findings 4. Newspapers decide whether or not to run a story that covers each study, and they go by the principle that they will only cover studies "whose findings sound dramatic" It's clear from the language of "whose findings sound dramatic" that dramatic-sounding is a property that already belongs to the study's findings, as the newspaper is deciding on whether or not to cover it. It isn't possible in this conversation that "the way the newspaper reports on it makes the findings sound dramatic".

   13%