Journalist: Newspapers generally report on only those scientific

The argument confuses the claim about scientific studies whose findings are dramatic with small observational studies. They have no grounds to relate the aforementioned things.

Hi. Any reason you requested it as a verbal reply request? If you have just a general comment, please use the quick reply box at the bottom or quote button.

Thanks.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the journalist’s reasoning?

(A) It casts doubt on the reliability of a study by questioning the motives of those reporting it. - No, it doesn't

(B) It fails to consider that even if a study’s findings sound dramatic, the scientific evidence for those findings may be strong. - No, That is not true because the argument clearly mentions the opposite.

(C) It confuses a claim about scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic with a similar claim about small observational studies. - There is no confusion created.

(D) It overlooks the possibility that small observational studies are far more common than large randomized trials. - This is correct. Because it could be a fact that observational studies are more common than large ones and hence commonly reported rather than the fact that the former have dramatic conclusion.

(E) It fails to rule out the possibility that a study’s having findings that sound dramatic is an effect rather than a cause of the study’s being reported on. - I marked E but looks like it just confused me. D is a better choice.

Right, so C says "It confuses a claim about scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic with a similar claim about small observational studies."
Let's see what happens when we negate this statement and assume that the journalist doesn't confuse the two. Now, it still stands that some scientific studies have dramatic results and that there is a claim that small studies have dramatic results.
Now if we didn't negate it, it would still stand to reason that the journalist is confused and is putting small studies in the paper because of the dramatic results they produce.
You should now be able to see that point C actually supports the journalist's point of view.

Moving to D. Firstly, the argument says that newspapers more frequently report small studies than they do large ones. IT DOES NOT say that small studies occur more frequently than large ones, merely that they are reported more often.
When we look at D, we learn that there could be about a 100 small studies for 10 large ones. The probability of dramatic results is naturally much higher in the 100 small studies, statistically speaking, and this invariably leads to more reports of small studies. Negating this would mean that the number of small and large studies could quite possibly be equal and this in turn would support the journalist's claim. Retaining D and not negating it would throw the argument out the window.

Hovkial Kindly share the official explanation.

Please provide the explanation. Thanks

Argument conclusion: A small observational study, on average, will have more Dramatic findings than a large randomized trial

Reasoning: Well, Newspapers generally only report studies whose findings sound dramatic, and newspapers report more small observational studies than a large randomized trial

Assumption/ Flaw - The author is assuming that just because newspapers report more small observational findings and they happen to be dramatic since newspapers only report dramatic findings, Small observational findings, in general, are dramatic

What if there are 1000 small observational findings a year and newspapers report only 100 of them since only 10% of them were dramatic but there are only 100 large randomized trials and newspapers report only 50 of them since only 50% of them were dramatic

So in the end the newspaper will report more small observational findings with dramatic findings, but does that mean that Small Ob, in general, is more dramatic than Large Ob?

NO

A. Reliability? Out of Scopt
B. Irrelevant. Still, if you want reasoning, Author never ruled out the possibility that Dramatic findings can be Large ob with strong scientific evidence
C.Tempting if you don't get the real logic. No such confusion about claims is there. What's the confusion?
D. Exactly. What if there are many many more small ob than large ob?
E. Author clearly stated that dramatic comes first.

CONCLUSION: Small observational studies are more likely than large controlled studies to have dramatic
findings.
REASONING: Newspapers report more frequently on small observational studies. Newspapers tend to
report only dramatic findings.
ANALYSIS: This question confuses odds for a group and odds for an individual. This is also called confusing
number and rate.
There are more rich people in China than in Switzerland. So does that mean that the average person in
China is more likely to be rich than the average Swiss citizen?
No. China is much bigger than Switzerland, and so it has more rich people. But it’s poorer on average.
Maybe there are many more small observational studies than large randomized studies. So small studies
could be less dramatic on average, yet produce a greater number of dramatic results.
You’re allowed to use intuition. It might have occurred to you that small studies are easier to do, and so
there are more of them.

A. The author never said that newspapers were wrong to report dramatic findings.
B. The author didn’t say that drama always meant a study was unscientific. They just said that large
studies have stronger evidence on average.
C. This answer is pure nonsense, so I don’t know how to explain why it is wrong. There simply were no
two ‘similar claims’ about both groups. If something doesn’t happen, it can’t be a flaw.
D. CORRECT. If small studies are more common, then they could produce more cases of dramatic results
even if they are less dramatic on average.
E. Actually, the first sentence rules out this possibility. Newspapers only report on stories that sound
dramatic. So the drama comes first.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.