#25 - McKinley: A double blind study, in which neither the

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi bengs,

You are likely to see similar issues on every logical reasoning section. Essentially what you are asking is if we have more examples of questions where they use words that have essentially the same meaning for the purpose of the argument. We see that ALL THE TIME. Sometimes the stimulus will use the phrase "highly unlikely" and the correct answer will refer to something being "very improbable." Language and word use is important, and the more you practice with this test, the more examples you will see of how different word choices matter.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[nicizle]

Honestly, I'm struggling with this question. None of the answer choices moved me. When I read McKinley's argument, he assumes that the drugs will work as perfectly intended for them to be able to discern who is receiving a placebo vs an active drug. I'm not understanding how D could be the answer because I simply do not see we can go as far as assuming Engin was making an indirect reference to side effects. All Engin says is that we can't make hasty conclusions because we don't know any outcome yet, which implies that we don't know how the drugs will work, or if they're even effective to begin with. They could be, but we simply wouldn't know right now.

McKinley assumes the active drug will be effective enough to produce discernible and observable results. Engin simply replies by saying McKinley is jumping to conclusions.

Please help me understand how Engin could've been implying anything about side effects vs intended effects. Who cares about that distinction? The main issue is McKinley's assumption that these drugs will be effective enough to produce any kind of results to begin with, side effects or not.

(PT 106, S1, Q25)