HELP on PT 50 section 4 (LR) number 23 Forum

[honestabe84]

I've been staring at this question for a half an hour now, but for some reason I can't get it. I understand why "C" is correct, but I can't figure out why "A" isn't also right. If there is a weaker correlation with insomniacs, then the stim (while not fully justified) is strengthened at least a little, which is all that is needed to be credited.

I can obviously see why "C" is correct (and probably a better answer), but "A" should also be correct. Could someone please help me with this?

[honestabe84]

bump

[nycparalegal]

The way I look at it is that in A, even though it states that the correlation is weaker in the studies that included people with insomnia than in the studies that did not, I take that to mean that there is still a correlation between melatonin and inducement of sleep, and you're looking to weaken that relationship, this strengthen the relationship.

[jamesieee]

(A) is not saying that the correlation between melatonin and sleep-induction for insomniacs is WEAK; it's merely saying that it's weak-ER than the correlation for non-insomniacs. This does not preclude the possibility that the correlation could still be strong. For example, if the correlation between meatonin and sleep-induction for non-insomniacs is 1, the correlation for insomniacs can be 0.99999 and (A) would still be true. If that were the case, the argument in the stimulus would be significantly weakened. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.

[alive]

I just took this test, and I agree it is a tough question (starred it but I did end up getting it right). My problem was fully understanding that C was right.

[honestabe84]

(A) is not saying that the correlation between melatonin and sleep-induction for insomniacs is WEAK; it's merely saying that it's weak-ER than the correlation for non-insomniacs. This does not preclude the possibility that the correlation could still be strong. For example, if the correlation between meatonin and sleep-induction for non-insomniacs is 1, the correlation for insomniacs can be 0.99999 and (A) would still be true. If that were the case, the argument in the stimulus would be significantly weakened. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.

I see where you're going. BUT while "A" clearly does not justify the conclusion, it still strengthens it a LITTLE by showing that there was not a stronger correlation in the study that included insomniacs. I can completely see why "C" is a better answer, but I've always been told that there is no such thing as better answers - The answer is either completely right or completely wrong.

[jamesieee]

(A) is not saying that the correlation between melatonin and sleep-induction for insomniacs is WEAK; it's merely saying that it's weak-ER than the correlation for non-insomniacs. This does not preclude the possibility that the correlation could still be strong. For example, if the correlation between meatonin and sleep-induction for non-insomniacs is 1, the correlation for insomniacs can be 0.99999 and (A) would still be true. If that were the case, the argument in the stimulus would be significantly weakened. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.

I see where you're going. BUT while "A" clearly does not justify the conclusion, it still strengthens it a LITTLE by showing that there was not a stronger correlation in the study that included insomniacs. I can completely see why "C" is a better answer, but I've always been told that there is no such thing as better answers - The answer is either completely right or completely wrong.

If the correlation for insomniacs was 0.99999 as per my example, it would be impossible to say that that strengthens the stimulus's argument even a little bit. The correlation for insomniacs can be extremely strong, just weaker compared to correlation for non-insomniacs. The stimulus is not arguing against the claim that melatonin is 100 percent effective; it's only arguing against the claim that melatonin is helpful. A 0.99999 correlation would strengthen the former argument but weaken the latter, because while it is not a perfect correlation, it is certainly helpful.

[honestabe84]

(A) is not saying that the correlation between melatonin and sleep-induction for insomniacs is WEAK; it's merely saying that it's weak-ER than the correlation for non-insomniacs. This does not preclude the possibility that the correlation could still be strong. For example, if the correlation between meatonin and sleep-induction for non-insomniacs is 1, the correlation for insomniacs can be 0.99999 and (A) would still be true. If that were the case, the argument in the stimulus would be significantly weakened. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.

I see where you're going. BUT while "A" clearly does not justify the conclusion, it still strengthens it a LITTLE by showing that there was not a stronger correlation in the study that included insomniacs. I can completely see why "C" is a better answer, but I've always been told that there is no such thing as better answers - The answer is either completely right or completely wrong.

If the correlation for insomniacs was 0.99999 as per my example, it would be impossible to say that that strengthens the stimulus's argument even a little bit. The correlation for insomniacs can be extremely strong, just weaker compared to correlation for non-insomniacs. The stimulus is not arguing against the claim that melatonin is 100 percent effective; it's only arguing against the claim that melatonin is helpful. A 0.99999 correlation would strengthen the former argument but weaken the latter, because while it is not a perfect correlation, it is certainly helpful.

By showing that there wasn't a stronger correlation with the insomniacs, doesn't that strengthen the argument by ruling out that possibility? Because if there was a stronger correlation with insomniacs, then the argument would be weakened, but by demonstrating that this is not the case, the argument is strengthened, right?

Thanks for your patience btw.

[jamesieee]

(A) is not saying that the correlation between melatonin and sleep-induction for insomniacs is WEAK; it's merely saying that it's weak-ER than the correlation for non-insomniacs. This does not preclude the possibility that the correlation could still be strong. For example, if the correlation between meatonin and sleep-induction for non-insomniacs is 1, the correlation for insomniacs can be 0.99999 and (A) would still be true. If that were the case, the argument in the stimulus would be significantly weakened. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.

I see where you're going. BUT while "A" clearly does not justify the conclusion, it still strengthens it a LITTLE by showing that there was not a stronger correlation in the study that included insomniacs. I can completely see why "C" is a better answer, but I've always been told that there is no such thing as better answers - The answer is either completely right or completely wrong.

If the correlation for insomniacs was 0.99999 as per my example, it would be impossible to say that that strengthens the stimulus's argument even a little bit. The correlation for insomniacs can be extremely strong, just weaker compared to correlation for non-insomniacs. The stimulus is not arguing against the claim that melatonin is 100 percent effective; it's only arguing against the claim that melatonin is helpful. A 0.99999 correlation would strengthen the former argument but weaken the latter, because while it is not a perfect correlation, it is certainly helpful.

By showing that there wasn't a stronger correlation with the insomniacs, doesn't that strengthen the argument by ruling out that possibility? Because if there was a stronger correlation with insomniacs, then the argument would be weakened, but by demonstrating that this is not the case, the argument is strengthened, right?

Thanks for your patience btw.

No problem. I think you're confusing strong with strongER and weak with weakER. Just because the correlation for insomniacs isn't stronger doesn't necessarily mean it's not strong (again, going back to the example of 0.99999 versus 1: 0.99999 is not as strong as 1, but it's still strong). If the correlation is strong, then the argument is still weakened (that is, melatonin IS helpful for insomnia). It is not enough to demonstrate that the correlation is not strongER - it must demonstrate that the correlation is not strong, period. A relative statement like "correlation A is weaker than correlation B" does not demonstrate that.

[honestabe84]

It is not enough to demonstrate that the correlation is not strongER - it must demonstrate that the correlation is not strong, period. A relative statement like "correlation A is weaker than correlation B" does not demonstrate that.

Ok, I got it. Thanks for the help!