PrepTest 135, Section 1, Question 20
Journalist: Newspapers generally report on only those scientific(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AIt casts doubt(14 more words not shown)
- BIt fails to(18 more words not shown)
- CIt confuses a(16 more words not shown)
- DIt overlooks the(13 more words not shown)
- EIt fails to(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How many of each kind of study were done in the first place?
More newspaper stories about small studies don't necessarily mean a given small study is more likely to produce dramatic findings. Small studies might simply be much more common.
Suppose researchers conduct 5,000 small observational studies and only five large randomized trials. Ten small studies produce dramatic findings and get covered, while one large trial does. Newspapers would publish ten small-study stories for every large-trial story, just as the premise allows.
But compare the chances. Ten out of 5,000 is one in 500. One out of five is one in five. In this example, a large trial is much more likely to have dramatic findings even though stories about small studies are more numerous.
What we’re looking for
That's the missing information for the flaw question: the total number of studies in each category. A count of the dramatic findings can't establish their relative frequency within the two kinds of study without those totals.
Working the answers
- A
The journalist doesn't dismiss a study by attacking the reporter's motives. The passage does describe small observational studies as less reliable, but the conclusion is about how likely they are to have dramatic findings. The problem in that conclusion is the missing comparison of study totals.
- B
Strong evidence and dramatic findings can coexist. Nothing in the conclusion requires otherwise: a large trial could produce a dramatic result. The question is how frequently each type does so, not whether a dramatic finding must be scientifically weak.
- C
The journalist doesn't simply treat “dramatic studies” and “small observational studies” as interchangeable groups. It compares newspaper coverage of small studies and large trials, then infers a difference in their likelihood of producing dramatic findings. The missing step is accounting for how many studies there are, not replacing one category's name with another's.
- DCorrect
If small observational studies are far more common, they could supply more dramatic newspaper stories even if each one is less likely to have dramatic findings. Our 5,000-versus-five example shows exactly how both premises could hold while the conclusion fails. We need rates within each group, not just the numbers that make the news.
- E
This suggests that newspaper reporting makes findings sound dramatic, rather than dramatic findings leading to coverage. That concerns the direction of a possible influence. Even if we accept the journalist's stated selection pattern, though, the comparison still fails without knowing the total number of studies in each category. E doesn't identify that count-versus-likelihood mistake.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.