PrepTest 122, Section 1, Question 5
Statistician: Two major studies found no causal link(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AContrary to the(16 more words not shown)
- BTwo studies that(12 more words not shown)
- CResearchers should conduct(16 more words not shown)
- DThe two studies(15 more words not shown)
- EDespite the opinions(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A thousand people sounds like a substantial study. But substantial enough to find what?
The disorder occurs in only 0.02 percent of the population. That's two people in 10,000. In a group of 1,000 or 1,100, the disorder could easily fail to appear even if the procedure increased its rate. The statistician explicitly tells us these samples are too small to detect even a doubling. Now the criticism makes sense: a study can include many people and still be too small for the particular effect it is meant to detect.
Notice what that criticism doesn't establish. Finding a weakness in studies that found no causal link doesn't prove that a link exists. A poor search for something isn't proof that the thing is there. Here, the statistician stays with the narrower point: these two studies are flawed.
What we’re looking for
That's also the main conclusion we're asked to identify. The sample sizes and the rarity of the disorder explain why the studies are flawed. They support the criticism; they aren't a recommendation that someone conduct a new study or a claim that the procedure really causes the disorder.
Working the answers
- A
This goes beyond criticizing the studies and claims there is reason to think the procedure causes the disorder. The statistician doesn't establish that positive connection. A study's failure to settle the issue leaves it unsettled; it doesn't automatically support the opposite of the study's finding.
- BCorrect
Calling the two studies “unsound” restates the claim that they are flawed. The rest of the passage explains that criticism: their samples were too small to detect an important increase in such a rare disorder. B captures what those reasons are meant to establish.
- C
A larger study might be a sensible next step, but the statistician doesn't recommend conducting one. Saying that a larger sample would be needed to detect the effect explains what's wrong with these studies. It doesn't, by itself, say anyone should undertake new research. We're identifying the conclusion actually made.
- D
The studies did report a finding: they found no causal link. The statistician questions the adequacy of their evidence, not whether they reached any finding at all. An unsupported conclusion is still a conclusion.
- E
We aren't told what many medical experts believe. More fundamentally, this shifts the point from the defects in two studies to the overall state of evidence for a causal link. The statistician's argument specifically supports the judgment that these studies are flawed.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.