#23 - Researcher: Each subject in this experiment owns one

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

In this research experiment, each subject was asked to estimate what portion of the nationwide
population drove the same type of car as the subject, and everyone overestimated this percentage.
The researcher hypothesizes that this tendency to overestimate is a result of the fact that car trends
may be regional, with certain models more common in particular areas, leading the people in those
areas to believe that their cars are equally well-represented nationally. The results of the research
are consistent with this hypothesis, so the researcher concludes that certain models are indeed more
common in certain areas:

• Premise: If some cars are regionally over-represented, this would lead to
  overestimation.
  
  Premise: This experiment shows that people tend to overestimate how well-represented
  their cars are nationally.
  
  Conclusion: Cars must be more common in certain regions, leading to the referenced
  overestimation.

The problem is that the researcher takes one possible explanation of the research results and jumps to
the conclusion that this one hypothesis must be accurate.

The question stem is, predictably, a Flaw in the Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice
will point out that the researcher presumes that one possible explanation is the only possible
explanation.

Answer choice (A): There is no need to estimate the likelihood that the population is well informed
about such statistics—the point is that everyone overestimated how common their cars were. Since
this choice does not describe a reasoning flaw, it can be safely ruled out.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The researcher points to the fact that the
regional auto over-representation hypothesis is supported by the experiment’s results, but appears to
believe that the hypothesis is confirmed by those results.

Answer choice (C): The argument doesn’t need to account for the subjects’ coming from various
places—the flaw regards the author’s hypothesis, and presumption that this theory is accurate.

Answer choice (D): Since the premises that are presented in the stimulus do not contradict one
another, this cannot describe the reasoning flaw from the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): No statistical generalization is assigned in this stimulus: the researcher discusses
one study and presents a hypothesis which attempts to explain people’s tendency to overestimate
how common their cars are nationally.

[ieric01]

I understood the reasoning for A but I also think it strengthened the author’s argument…. However, I may be wrong…what do you think?

====

A) is not a flaw. The subjects didn’t need to know the actual statistics to make a judgment. In fact, the author assumes people would NOT know this. If they did, then maybe they wouldn’t have overestimated. And the author's argument wouldn’t stand. In fact, I believe it strengthens the author’s argument. Since people didn’t know the actual statistic, they were able to make an unbiased judgment. Otherwise, the experiment’s results and the author's hypothesis would be questionable.

[Adam Tyson]

I agree with you that answer A does not represent a flaw in the argument, ieric01, although I am not so sure I agree that it strengthens the argument. Too much information from outside the stimulus and the answer is needed to make that answer a strengthener. The author might have correctly estimated the subjects' level of knowledge, or underestimated it, or overestimated it. You might be confusing "the argument fails to estimate" with "the argument fails to accurately estimate" here? The point is that there is no need for the author to do any estimation of how much or little the subjects know, because he has already established that the subjects were wrong.