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

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[sydnew]

I had no idea how to prephrase this question. I ended up skipping it but even now when I am trying to understand it. I didn't catch the "...being closer than the uncorrected data..." so is that why B is correct? The researchers give more scrutiny to the studies not in line hoping there are corrections that can be made so it is more in line? And then ignore the studies that are already in favor of Jones's theory?

Thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi sydnew,

Great question. This one is really tricky to pre-phrase, so don't worry about not coming up with one. The reason it is hard is that there are LOTS of possible things that could help explain. You've looking for the answer that best does. B is correct because, if the scientists take a closer look at data that doesn't agree with the theory, they'd probably also be more likely to correct errors in that data, which would move it towards Jones's theory. We don't know whether they're doing this on purpose or not, and it doesn't matter; either way, it explains why the data could generally move closer to the theory.

[Pragmatism]

I got this answer wrong—I chose A. Upon reviewing it, I see why answer choice B is correct but I still don’t give it greater weight than answer choice A. Here is my reasoning:

The stimulus speaks of the standard practice for researchers is to correct errors in collected data. Why? Because these errors can plague the data-collection process. On those basis, in the scientist’s particular field, he/she conlcludes that there is a striking tendency for correction to favor Jones’s theory (JT).

Okay, so why is this the case?

A) if, when deciding to accept a theory, researchers normally give the same weight to data that is in line with that theory and data that conflicts with that theory, then it could be that JT is superior to these other theories most (normally) of the time when researchers determine whether or not to accept the theory.

To me A says that while bias could be an explanation as to why the scientist’s field favors JT, it could very well be that it is superior to other theories most of the time.

B) giving data that conflicts with the scientist’s field greater scrutiny might suit their biases, and thus, causes them to favor JT over others.

C) this seems like a flawed reasoning— setting out to prove what ones already holds to be true. It almost seems as a circular reasoning. I couldn’t image scientist’s seeking to correct errors that can plague a data-collection process by rectifying one vulnerability for another.

D) no bearing on helping us choose why the scientist’s favor JT.

E) okay, then explain to us the findings... did this help prove whether or not JT was better then these other theories?


I was stuck between A & B. To me, B proved to be a more tenuous process to prove that what conflicting data tends to undergo than why JT is better. There could be data that doesn’t conflict with JT and yet we do not know how they favor those theories over JT. However, A helps reconcile that by proposing, all else being equal, all theories are weighted the same and JT proves to provide better objective results than other theories.

Please help me with my reasoning.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Pragmatism,
Answer A states that when researchers are trying to determine whether to accept a theory (in this case it would be Jones's theory) they give equal weight to research that supports and counters the theory (here Jones's theory). But if that were the case it would be unclear why they told us that research was amended and when that happened it tended to match Jones's research. According to Answer A it shouldn't really matter whether the data supported Jones's theory (this also assumes we are trying to determine whether the theory should be accepted, which is also not in the stimulus.)
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Bruin96]

Hi!
Can someone please explain why C is incorrect? I was in between B & C and ultimately chose C.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Bruin96,

We are looking for an answer choice that explains why the corrected data is closer to Jones' theory than the uncorrected data is. We need something to explain the discrepancy between the corrected data and the uncorrected data. Why would it align to Jones' theory when correct but not when it's uncorrected?

Answer choice (C) would apply to both the corrected and uncorrected data. This answer choice talks about what the researchers choose to research, but does not differentiate between what that research shows. We want something that's going to help us explain the difference between the corrected and uncorrected data. If the answer choice doesn't even provide information that would help us see a difference between the two groups of data, it's not going to provide that explanation.

Hope that helps!
Rahael

[lanereuden]

I didn’t chose B because I figure if they scrutinize the conflicting ones more so than the ones in alignment, that means they will likely double check and confirm it is in conflict.

This is in direct contrast to what was written by power score earlier:

“B is correct because, if the scientists take a closer look at data that doesn't agree with the theory, they'd probably also be more likely to correct errors in that data, which would move it towards Jones's theory. “

[Robert Carroll]

lane,

They're going to do more than confirm it is in conflict - the scientist tells us that it is standard practice to correct collected data. The more scrutiny they give data, the more chances they have to detect errors, and detecting errors is something that can lead to corrected data. The less scrutiny they give data, the less chance they have to find any reason to correct it. So it makes sense that data given more scrutiny will be corrected more. The data in line with Jones will stay where it is (in line with Jones). The data not in line with Jones will receive more scrutiny and, in some cases, be corrected. It's reasonable to think a lot of those corrections change it in the direction of being more in line with Jones.

Robert Carroll

[lw718]

Hi,

When doing this question, I rejected C because I don't really understand why it's more reasonably likely for corrected data to be more in line with Jones's theory rather than out of line with Jones's theory. Therefore, even if researchers scrutinize conflicting data more and thus find more errors, I don't really see why those errors necessarily are more likely to reveal corrections more in line with Jones's theory. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated!