gvij2017 wrote:
Why not C?
Please explain.
Moreover, this is already mentioned that small observational stories are more frequent than randomized trials.
I am confused.
Right, so C says "It confuses a claim about scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic with a similar claim about small observational studies."
Let's see what happens when we negate this statement and assume that the journalist doesn't confuse the two. Now, it still stands that some scientific studies have dramatic results and that there is a claim that small studies have dramatic results.
Now if we didn't negate it, it would still stand to reason that the journalist is confused and is putting small studies in the paper because of the dramatic results they produce.
You should now be able to see that point C actually supports the journalist's point of view.
Moving to D. Firstly, the argument says that newspapers more frequently report small studies than they do large ones. IT DOES NOT say that small studies occur more frequently than large ones, merely that they are reported more often.
When we look at D, we learn that there could be about a 100 small studies for 10 large ones. The probability of dramatic results is naturally much higher in the 100 small studies, statistically speaking, and this invariably leads to more reports of small studies. Negating this would mean that the number of small and large studies could quite possibly be equal and this in turn would support the journalist's claim. Retaining D and not negating it would throw the argument out the window.