Self-study
Journalist: Support Newspapers generally report on only those scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic. ████████████ █████████ ███████ █████ █████ █████████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████████ ████████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ █ █████ █████████████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ █ █████ ██████████ ██████
The Journalist's Reasoning
The journalist observes that newspapers generally report only on studies with dramatic-sounding findings. She also observes that there are more newspaper stories about small observational studies than about large randomized trials. From these two observations, the journalist concludes that a small observational study must be more likely to have dramatic findings than a large randomized trial.
In other words, the journalist's reasoning is: newspapers favor dramatic findings, and small studies get more newspaper coverage, so the rate at which small studies produce dramatic findings must be higher than the rate for large trials.
Identifying the Flaw: Rate v. Amount
The journalist's conclusion is about rates. She's claiming that any given small observational study is more likely to produce dramatic findings than any given large randomized trial. But the evidence she cites is about raw numbers of newspaper stories. More stories about small studies doesn't necessarily mean that a higher percentage of small studies have dramatic findings.
To see why, imagine there are 1,000 small observational studies conducted and only 20 large randomized trials. Suppose 10% of each type produce dramatic findings. That gives us 100 small studies with dramatic findings but only 2 large trials with dramatic findings. Newspapers would then write far more stories about small studies, not because small studies are more likely to have dramatic findings, but simply because there are way more small studies out there. So you can view the journalist as committing a percent (or rate) v. amount flaw. To reach a conclusion about comparative rates of having dramatic findings, we'd need to know something about the total numbers of small studies and large trials.
Another framing of the flaw is that the journalist overlooks an alternate explanation for the phenomenon she observes (a greater number of stories about small studies than large trials). She jumps to the explanation that small studies must have a higher rate of dramatic findings. But the real explanation could just be that there are far more small observational studies than large randomized trials.
Analysis by Kevin_Lin
20.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████
a
It casts doubt ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ███
b
It fails to ████████ ████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████
c
It confuses a █████ █████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ █████ █████ █████ █████████████ ████████
d
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ █████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████
e
It fails to ████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████████ ███