Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

A large group of hyperactive children whose regular diets included food containing large amounts of additives was observed by researchers trained to assess the presence or absence of behavior problems. The children were then placed on a low-additive diet for several weeks, after which they were observed again. Originally nearly 60 percent of the children exhibited behavior problems; after the change in diet, only 30 percent did so. On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that food additives can contribute to behavior problems in hyperactive children. The evidence cited fails to establish the conclusion because (A) there is no evidence that the reduction in behavior problems was proportionate to the reduction in food-additive intake (B) there is no way to know what changes would have occurred without the change of diet, since only children who changed to a low-additive diet were studied (C) exactly how many children exhibited behavior problems after the change in diet cannot be determined, since the size of the group studied is not precisely given (D) there is no evidence that the behavior of some of the children was unaffected by additives (E) the evidence is consistent with the claim that some children exhibit more frequent behavior problems after being on the low-additive diet than they had exhibited when first observed

Short Answer

Expert verified
Correct answer is (B): No control group to measure diet change effects.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Conclusion

The conclusion of the argument states that the reduction in observed behavior problems among hyperactive children was due to the decrease in food additives in their diet. This suggests a causal relationship based on the evidence presented.
02

Identifying the Evidence

The evidence presented is the observation that behavior problems reduced from 60% to 30% after a dietary change to low-additive foods. This data implies a link between food additives and behavior problems but does not establish a direct causal relationship.
03

Analyzing the Critical Point

The task requires identifying why the evidence does not conclusively support the conclusion. Consider whether other factors could contribute to behavior changes, or if there are gaps in the evidence provided.
04

Evaluating Each Option

- Option (A) questions the proportionate reduction but acknowledges some change. - Option (B) highlights the lack of a control group or alternative scenario, crucial for causal inference. - Option (C) focuses on an unknown group size, which does not affect the causation directly. - Option (D) suggests a possibility of unaffected children, which doesn't directly attack the conclusion. - Option (E) proposes an inconsistency but doesn't directly address causal inference.
05

Identifying the Correct Answer

The key is whether the study's design allows for a clear causal conclusion about the effect of food additives. Option (B) identifies the fundamental flaw: without a control group, it's impossible to discern whether the observed change in behavior was truly due to the diet change or other factors.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Causal Reasoning
Causal reasoning is a method used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. In the context of this exercise, it refers to determining if the reduction in behavior problems among hyperactive children was actually caused by the dietary change to low-additive foods. The research observed a decrease from 60% to 30% in behavior issues after changing the diet, which initially suggests a causal link between food additives and behavior problems.

To strengthen causal reasoning, researchers often look for:
  • Correlation: Does the change in diet correlate with the reduction in behavior problems?
  • Elimination of other variables: Are there other factors that might have influenced behavior changes?
  • Replication: Can the findings be replicated in other settings or studies?
Without ruling out other variables or having a control group, the conclusion made by the researchers could be premature. It’s possible that other factors, like natural maturation over time or changes in other environmental variables, could have contributed to the observed outcome.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking involves analyzing information and arguments in a logical and disciplined way. In this exercise, it includes questioning the conclusion drawn by the researchers that food additives contribute to behavior problems in hyperactive children. By engaging in critical thinking, one should evaluate whether the evidence sufficiently supports this conclusion.

When assessing claims critically, consider:
  • Assumptions: Are there any unstated assumptions influencing the conclusion?
  • Quality of evidence: Is the evidence provided robust and appropriately collected?
  • Validity: Is there a logical connection between evidence and conclusion?
Applying critical thinking means not accepting conclusions at face value but instead analyzing the strength of the reasons and evidence provided.
Argument Evaluation
Argument evaluation is about assessing the components that make up an argument to understand its validity and reliability. In the research regarding hyperactive children's diet, the main argument is that food additives cause behavior problems. Evaluating this claim involves dissecting the structure as follows:

  • Premises: The reduction in behavior problems after reducing food additives serves as the main premise.
  • Conclusion: The argument concludes that food additives are linked to behavior issues.
  • Validity: Consider if the premises logically lead to the conclusion.
  • Soundness: Evaluate if the premises are true and if the argument overall is persuasive.
By examining the premises and determining whether they adequately support the conclusion, one can critique the strength of the argument. This evaluation reveals whether the research has accounted for all necessary variables to reliably attribute behavior changes to dietary changes.
Research Methodology
Research methodology refers to the systematic plan followed in conducting the study. It includes the design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. In the case of this study, the methodology involves observing changes in behavior following a dietary shift to low-additive foods.

Important elements of research methodology include:
  • Design: Consider whether the study used a control group and how it was structured.
  • Data Collection: How was data gathered, and was it consistently applied across all participants?
  • Analysis: Was the data analyzed correctly to truly reflect changes attributed to diet?
  • Conclusion: Does the methodology lead to a reliable conclusion without leaving significant gaps?
The lack of a control group in this study is a major flaw, as it prevents distinguishing whether improvements are due to the diet or other unaccounted factors, thus affecting the research's validity. Ensuring a robust research methodology is critical for drawing accurate conclusions from the data.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed? (A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to (B) pose a threat to the environment. (B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives. (C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress. (D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development's effect on bird- migration patterns. (E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.

Marine biologists had hypothesized that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another in response to hunger. Periodic checking of lobster traps, however, has revealed instances of lobsters sharing traps together for weeks. Eight lobsters even shared one trap together for two months without eating one another. The marine biologists' hypothesis, therefore, is clearly wrong. The argument against the marine biologists' hypothesis is based on which one of the following assumptions? (A) Lobsters not caught in lobster traps have been observed eating one another. (B) Two months is the longest known period during which eight or more lobsters have been trapped together. (C) It is unusual to find as many as eight lobsters caught together in one single trap. (D) Members of other marine species sometimes eat their own kind when no other food sources are available. (E) Any food that the eight lobsters in the trap might have obtained was not enough to ward off hunger.

The author mentions that goodwill was probably excluded from the probate valuation of a business in nineteenth-century Britain most likely in order to (A) give an example of a business asset about which little was known in the nineteenth century (B) suggest that the probate valuations of certain businesses may have been significant underestimations of their true market value (C) make the point that this exclusion probably had an equal impact on the probate valuations of all nineteenth-century British businesses (D) indicate that expectations about future profit-making is the single most important factor in determining the market value of certain businesses (E) argue that the twentieth-century method of determining probate valuations of a business may be consistently superior to the nineteenth-century method

Before the printing press, books could be purchased only in expensive manuscript copies. The printing press produced books that were significantly less expensive than the manuscript editions. The public's demand for printed books in the first years after the invention of the printing press was many times greater than demand had been for manuscript copies. This increase demonstrates that there was a dramatic jump in the number of people who learned how to read in the years after publishers first started producing books on the printing press. Which one of the following statements, if true, casts doubt on the argument? (A) During the first years after the invention of the printing press, letter writing by people who wrote without the assistance of scribes or clerks exhibited a dramatic increase. (B) Books produced on the printing press are often found with written comments in the margins in the handwriting of the people who owned the books. (C) In the first years after the printing press was invented, printed books were purchased primarily by people who had always bought and read expensive manuscripts but could afford a greater number of printed books for the same money. (D) Books that were printed on the printing press in the first years after its invention often circulated among friends in informal reading clubs or libraries. (E) The first printed books published after the invention of the printing press would have been useless to illiterate people, since the books had virtually no illustrations.

Sabina: The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support. Moreover, if the words are clearly defined and consistently used, the actual words chosen make no difference to an argument's soundness. Thus, how an argument is expressed can have no bearing on whether it is a good argument. Emile: Badly chosen words can make even the soundest argument a poor one. After all, many words have social and political connotations that influence people's response to claims expressed in those words, regardless of how carefully and explicitly those words are defined. Since whether people will acknowledge a fact is affected by how the fact is expressed, the conclusions they actually draw are also affected. The point at issue between Emile and Sabina is whether (A) defining words in one way rather than another can alter either the facts or the conclusions the facts will justify (B) a word can be defined without taking into account its social and political connotations (C) a sound argument in support of a given conclusion is a better argument than any unsound argument for that same conclusion (D) it would be a good policy to avoid using words that are likely to lead people either to misunderstand the claims being made or to reason badly about those claims (E) a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion can cause an argument to be a bad one

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free