PT12.S1.Q26 - science academy study: it has been demonstrated that

Seriousbird

I understand why the correct answer is right, but I'm not so sure about the incorrect answers. If someone can check my reasoning and see if I am correct, I would be so appreciative and grateful!

A) This answer choice discusses luck which was never talked about in the exchange. I also think it is wrong because of the word "rarely" while we know that some farms have positive successful rates which the critic argues against, we don't know the rate of the farms success.
The critics do not show that the results would be different if twice the amount of farms were studied; they only say the farms studied were the ones that were amenable to natural methods, the results would be the same because of the farms selected under study
C) This is true except for the fact that the critics show justification for their reasoning (farms that were selected for study)
D) They don't demonstrate that natural methods are not suitable for the majority of farms; they only point out that if a self selecting group is used for a study, then it is not representative of all farms using natural methods
E) captures the flaw, the study is saying natural methods success rates is possible, not that it is representative for all farms

inactive

Bumping so more people see!

nessa.k13.0

Hi @sweetsecret !

I think for the most part I agree with you but I have a few differences in how/why I eliminated some of the answer choices
I eliminated the following answers because:

A) Yes, I agree but I eliminated this answer immediately because of the first line, "Success and failure in farming are mainly due to," because this line of thought is outside of the scope of the Critics reasoning. Yes, the Critics mention success and failure but they do not deliberate as to what the causes of success and failure are. Yeah, if you read further, this ac gets further away from the issue at hand in the stimulus when it brings up "luck" and "management of chance occurrences" whaaa? That is not even supported by the stimulus let alone the Critics logic. At this point in a section and with this type of question that specifically asks you to evaluate the reasoning in one component (this is a strangely worded flaw question), I would stop reading this answer choice at the first sign of departure from how the Critics reasoned.

Yeah, the results could have been the same, had the study included twice as many, but we aren't sure. I hope you were able to eliminate this quickly from "result of the study would have been" because we have absolutely no support for what the results of the study could have been.

C) This is not true at all. Where does soil quality come up in the stimulus? Furthermore, the Critics do not even address WHY failures occurred, but rather they bring up an issue with representation in the sample of the study by inquiring about "farmers who have tried such methods and failed".

D) Yeah I agree. The critics do not demonstrate anything about natural methods.

E) This is right because it describes the flaw in the Critics' reasoning. The flaw is a false attribution of sorts; having a representational sample in the study is irrelevant to the study saying something is possible. Yeah, the critics misrepresent the issue in the study by inquiring as to the sample being representative of farmers who failed, rather than the issue of natural methods being possible. Be careful to note specifically that the Science Academy study says that something is possible and not that there is a rate of success or some sort nor a correlated quantification of it.

I hope that helps!