#17 - Scientist: A number of errors can plague a

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lw718!

Remember the stimulus tells us it is standard for all data to be corrected. So in the case of answer choice (B), both the data that conflicts with Jones's theory as well as the data that is in line with Jones's theory are corrected. It's just that the data that is in line with Jones's theory doesn't get subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. So basically the researchers have a bias where when their corrected data aligns with Jones's theory, they don't tend to question it, but when the corrected data doesn't align with Jones's theory, they scrutinize it more heavily, looking for more errors. This bias helps to explain the tendency of corrections to favor Jones's theory.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[HEXUAN_UIBE]

Hi,
i want to share my understanding of this question.
firstly, we need to know where is the "discrepancy", it is very confusing and takes me a lot of effort to find it. but I finally found it.
actually, the discrepancy is the "majority", which means that most corrections make the collected data closer to the jones's theory. but why is this result? the normal situation should be that an equal amount of correction makes the collected data closer(the collected data is in conflict with the theory) as the correction makes the collected data no more closer(the collected data is in line with the theory).
finally, answer B explains this by indicating the researchers' greater scrutiny on the conflicting data.(is this familiar? i think a lot of easy questions use this method)

[Adam Tyson]

Your reasoning looks good to me, HEXUAN_UIBE! The author tells us that there is this "striking tendency," which sounds like they find it odd. We need an answer that makes it seem normal, or at least understandable, why the corrected data tends to line up with Jones's theory more often than not.

I had two prephrases here:

1) Jones's theory is correct (which might explain why the correction of errors would lead to more data favoring that theory)
2) There is some bias among researchers in favor of Jones's theory, whether it is correct or not (which might lead researchers to intentionally or unintentionally bring data into line with the theory and to overlook errors in data that already lines up with it)

Answer B looks a lot like the second one about bias.

Add I agree with you about some of the easier Resolve questions: they do tend to be about discrepancies in reporting or in some scientific methodology, and the resolution to the paradox is that there is some bias or problem with the reporting or methodology. You will likely see more Resolve questions with a similar pattern!

[cacurtis1]

I am confused on a basic understand of the argument as a whole.

WHAT EXACTLY IS JONE'S THEORY?

and can someone simply the last sentence (However....predicts.")

for some reason I cannot get a clear understanding of what the argument is saying.

greatly appreciated!!

[katehos]

Hi cacurtis1!
 

WHAT EXACTLY IS JONE'S THEORY?

We don't know! And, it doesn't matter (though I am curious ).

We do know, however, what the argument is, so let's break it down to answer your question! The scientist starts off by telling us that data-collection is faulty ('errors can plague'), then the scientist tells us that researchers examine data to detect and subsequently correct data. In the last sentence, the scientist says that in the their field, these corrections seem to favor Jones' theory. The scientist then extrapolates upon this tendency to favor Jones' theory, saying that most of the corrected data conforms more with Jones' theory than the uncorrected version of the data. Basically, the scientist is saying it's odd that the corrected data favors Jones' theory!

Our task is to Resolve this Paradox. So, we must come up with an answer that explains why the corrected data favors Jones' theory. Whether it's that Jones' theory is correct, the researchers are biased (answer choice B), or for some other reason, we can use our knowledge of the stimulus to attack this question!

I hope this helps!
Kate

[alwaysconfused]

I haven't seen this specific issue with option B addressed yet. The stimulus states that the CORRECTIONS end up being more in favor with Jones's Theory. What if Jones's theory is really far off from the accurate theory. The corrections wouldn't get the other theories closer to Jones's. Do you just have to assume that Jones's theory is pretty accurate, or do you have to assume that the correction makers are biased towards Jones's theory and that is why the corrections sway in his favor?

This question sucks. Someone help

[Robert Carroll]

alwaysconfused,

But answer choice (B) says they'll give data that conflicts with Jones greater scrutiny. So there's more of a chance for data that conflicts with Jones to get corrected than data that's consistent with Jones. All other things being equal, it would make sense for corrected data to get more consistent with Jones. As you point out, all other things may not be equal, but it takes assuming Jones is wildly wrong for that to be the case. What basis do we have for thinking that Jones is way off? I see none.

We don't need to know that Jones is accurate for answer choice (B) to work. Answer choice (B) simply shows that, given the tendency of information inconsistent with Jones to get more scrutiny, the farther something is from what Jones thinks, the more likely it will get changed via correction. If this answer were not true, corrections should pull equally toward and away from Jones. With this answer choice, we have an explanation of why there's more tendency to pull toward Jones than away. That's all we can want from a Resolve the Paradox answer choice.

Robert Carroll