- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Tue Aug 20, 2024 1:16 pm
#108439
Hi sxzhao,
The first step in solving this question is recognizing what type of question this is and thus what you are looking for in the correct answer. This is a Main Point (Fill in the Blank) question. Here, the correct answer should express the conclusion of the argument. In other words, you want to follow the logic of the argument that is provided in the stimulus and complete the author's argument with a conclusion.
You seem to be concerned that not enough information about the study is provided. If we were trying to weaken the argument, then such details would matter, but they aren't really the focus here. Instead, you want to focus on what was provided in the stimulus and then determine what the author of the argument would conclude based on those statements.
The first sentence of the stimulus states that researchers found no correlation between arthritis pain intensity and any weather features that are believed to cause increased arthritis pain despite trying to find these correlations. For the purposes of this question, we accept this as true in drawing a conclusion to the argument.
At face value, these results suggest that no correlation exists between these two things and that anyone who believes these correlations exist is mistaken. Of course, it's possible that the study was somehow flawed, but there is no indication of this given and we don't want to just assume this.
The words "this study suggests" in the conclusion/answer choice indicate that the argument is taking the results of the study at face value. The study didn't find any correlation. This suggests that there is no correlation to be found or presumably the researchers would have found it. (Of course, it's possible that the researchers missed the correlation, but we have no reason to assume this.)
One last point, I think you may be misunderstanding the discussion of the experiment regarding the delay between the weather feature (that each person believes caused his or her arthritis pain increase) and when that person reported the arthritis pain increase. For example, if person A believes that rain causes his or her arthritis pain increase, the study is not tracking when the person believes the rain started. The study is tracking when the rain actually started compared to when the person reports arthritis pain increase. The "belief" part is only mentioned because different people in the study had different beliefs about what specific weather features (humidity, temperature, etc.) caused their arthritis pain increase. And since the range in time delays was "all over the map" and varied widely for no discernible reasons, this suggests that the connection between these weather events and the arthritis pain increase was probably imagined.
The first step in solving this question is recognizing what type of question this is and thus what you are looking for in the correct answer. This is a Main Point (Fill in the Blank) question. Here, the correct answer should express the conclusion of the argument. In other words, you want to follow the logic of the argument that is provided in the stimulus and complete the author's argument with a conclusion.
You seem to be concerned that not enough information about the study is provided. If we were trying to weaken the argument, then such details would matter, but they aren't really the focus here. Instead, you want to focus on what was provided in the stimulus and then determine what the author of the argument would conclude based on those statements.
The first sentence of the stimulus states that researchers found no correlation between arthritis pain intensity and any weather features that are believed to cause increased arthritis pain despite trying to find these correlations. For the purposes of this question, we accept this as true in drawing a conclusion to the argument.
At face value, these results suggest that no correlation exists between these two things and that anyone who believes these correlations exist is mistaken. Of course, it's possible that the study was somehow flawed, but there is no indication of this given and we don't want to just assume this.
The words "this study suggests" in the conclusion/answer choice indicate that the argument is taking the results of the study at face value. The study didn't find any correlation. This suggests that there is no correlation to be found or presumably the researchers would have found it. (Of course, it's possible that the researchers missed the correlation, but we have no reason to assume this.)
One last point, I think you may be misunderstanding the discussion of the experiment regarding the delay between the weather feature (that each person believes caused his or her arthritis pain increase) and when that person reported the arthritis pain increase. For example, if person A believes that rain causes his or her arthritis pain increase, the study is not tracking when the person believes the rain started. The study is tracking when the rain actually started compared to when the person reports arthritis pain increase. The "belief" part is only mentioned because different people in the study had different beliefs about what specific weather features (humidity, temperature, etc.) caused their arthritis pain increase. And since the range in time delays was "all over the map" and varied widely for no discernible reasons, this suggests that the connection between these weather events and the arthritis pain increase was probably imagined.