Pharmacist: A large study of people aged 65- 81 and suffering from

KS15

Only pharmacist is mentioned in argument so how come the opinion of individuals come because only one individual is present.
So B is wrong

Sample here is 65-81 age group.not Everytime is question stem they will mention.it is logical and you need to get through it as you read along argument.

Hope this helps

Posted from my mobile device

Manufacturers have made a claim that is not a 'sample'. If you understood what a sample means, then you would not be questioning my doubt. Also, yes, have to go as per the argument and not 'infer' anything here as you have mentioned. I will wait for the poster/experts to help on this. Thanks

Manufacturers claim that pineal gland produces less melatonin as the gland ages. Pharmacist says this claim is true by basing his argument on the survey taken. The sample set of survey is only those who are between 65-81 and suffering from insomnia. So we cannot conclude in general that pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages. We may conclude that the gland produces less melatonin only in those who're suffering from insomnia. So sample set is the issue here. Hope this helped.

Cheers!

I understand what you are saying here-Thanks for explaining but the question is how is the sample 'unrepresentative'? It is certainly representative but perhaps limited. Not a great question IMO .

One of the question when it is efficient to do a little prethinking.
When I read a question I was 99% sure what the answer will be.

The argument is flawed because the passage spoke only about people aged 61-85 with insomnia. Imagine that these people had insomnia in age 30-45 for example.
They were younger. Nothing changed after that. So the argument that pineal gland produces less melatonin with age is wrong. Maybe this pineal gland produced less melatonin than in other people from the beginning.

So it is E. Unrepresentative.

Pharmacist: A large study of people aged 65- 81 and suffering from insomnia showed that most of insomnia' s symptoms are substantially alleviated by ingesting melatonin, a hormone produced by the pineal gland, which plays a role in the regulation of the body's biological clock. Thus, the recent claims made by manufacturers of melatonin supplements that the pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages are evidently correct.

The pharmacist's argument is flawed in that it

(A) infers from the effect of an action that the action is intended to produce that effect -> Irrelevant.
(B) relies on the opinions of individuals who are likely to be biased -> We can't be sure. Incorrect.
( C) depends on using two different meanings for the same term to draw its conclusion -> Where are two different meanings. Incorrect.
(D) confuses an effect of a phenomenon with its cause -> Effect has a cause. It is not confusing. Incorrect.
(E) relies on a sample that is unrepresentative -> on a sample...Yes, we have a very specific age group, we can't make it a general statement. Let's keep it.

So, I think E.

Perfect explanation by Manhattan folks:

Question Type: Flaw

Argument Core:
Conc - Pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages
(why?)
P1 - Large study of 65-81 insomniacs showed that more melatonin helped
P2 - Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland

Okay, where did this conclusion come from? Where did we talk about how much melatonin the pineal gland produces?

How did the author get from the results of the study to this claim?

He must be assuming that "since giving insomniacs melatonin HELPED their insomnia, their insomnia must have been caused by insufficient melatonin."

Does that have to be true?

If I give a sad person $1000 and make them happier, does that mean their sadness was caused by not having enough money?

Of course not! Maybe they were say because their favorite NBA team just got eliminated from the playoffs but a sudden gift of $1000 is enough to distract them and perk them up.

So we could say that a flaw the author makes is "assuming that something that TREATS a certain problem was CAUSING the problem in the first place".

Another way to approach Flaw (and other Assumption Family questions) is simply to debate the conclusion.

The author claims the pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages.

So we have to argue that the pineal gland produces the same (or more) as it ages.

AUTHOR: oh yeah? well then how come insomniacs got better when we gave them more melatonin? doesn't that suggest that they didn't have enough to begin with?

US: Maybe. But if Tylenol helps you get rid of your headache, does that mean your headache was caused by too little Tylenol in your bloodstream? We don't know the insomnia is caused by too little melatonin. But let's assume for a second that the problem IS caused by too little melatonin -- do we know that the pineal gland produces less as it ages? Did these people have insomnia when they were young? Maybe they've ALWAYS had too little melatonin. They might just have bad pineal glands, and this study has nothing to do with the effects of aging.

Let's check out answers:

(A) This sounds kinda tempting. It has causal wording. What "effect of an action" was there? The action of ingesting melatonin had the effect of helping insomnia. Did the author illicitly conclude that we had people ingest melatonin with the INTENT of helping their insomnia?

This answer deals with whether or not the experimenters intended to help insomnia by giving melatonin. Who cares?

We're debating whether or not the pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages. Eliminate.

(B) This would tempt people because the conclusion mentions the manufacturers of melatonin supplements. But to RELY on their opinion means that their opinion was THE premise.

That's not at all accurate. The premise was the large study. We don't know who conducted the study. And the results of the study are not opinions. The author's argument relies only on the results of the study and knowledge that the pineal gland produces melatonin and relates to the sleep cycle. Eliminate.

(C) This old classic flaw? Next thing you know they'll offer me the ol' Circular Reasoning. Two Different Meanings and Circular Reasoning pop up in answer choices all the time and are almost always wrong. Did we identify a term that was used in two different ways? Nope. Eliminate.

(D) Causal language again ... did we have an effect of a phenomenon? Yes, the phenomenon of "taking melatonin" had the effect of "helping insomnia". Did the author get those backwards? Did "helping insomnia" really have the effect of "taking melatonin"?

That's crazy talk! I don't even know what that means. (D) is code for "reverse causality". That comes into play with correlation -> causality arguments.

Our causal issue here was with the reasoning of, "Since more X helps the problem, too little X must be causing the problem."

(E) Unrepresentative sample? Hmmm. Didn't think that was the problem. It IS a "large study". But wait --- it's a study of 65-81 year olds and the conclusion is about the pineal gland "as it ages".

Maybe we could object that this study doesn't help us analyze the pineal gland "as it ages" since it only looks at "aged people".

That's a bit weird, but it's kinda like the objection we had when we said "What if these people have ALWAYS had insomnia? How does this study show us that nowadays they have less melatonin in their system than previously?"

In order to draw a stronger conclusion about the pineal gland "as it ages", we would want to do a study that looks at insomniacs of all age groups.

If melatonin was only helping the older people, THAT would suggest that as you get older you need some more melatonin.

If melatonin was helping ALL age groups, then we wouldn't draw any conclusion about the pineal gland producing less M as it ages. We would probably just think "melatonin is an effective treatment for insomnia, and it looks like MAYBE insomnia is caused in part by having too little melatonin."

This is a tricky correct answer. Note that what will screw up most of us on this problem is that we are very likely to see the initial problem with this logic: "just because more X makes the problem go away doesn't mean that too little X was causing the problem in the first place".

We might call this the Primary Flaw. However, if you pretend for a second that we DO know that too little melatonin causes the problem, you STILL can find a Secondary Flaw, which is "how do we know the problem gets worse with age?"

This is typical of really hard Flaw problems -- the correct answer doesn't reward the Primary Flaw most of us initially notice ... you have to go along with some of the author's sketchy moves to get to ADDITIONAL problems with his thinking.

 

Argument Summary:
The pharmacist concludes that because melatonin alleviates insomnia symptoms in elderly people, the claim that the pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages must be correct.

Option Analyses:

A) infers from the effect of an action that the action is intended to produce that effect
- This choice is about intentionality, which isn't what the pharmacist's argument is concerned with. The pharmacist isn't saying that the body intends to produce less melatonin; they're drawing a conclusion about biological function, not intention.

B) relies on the opinions of individuals who are likely to be biased
- The argument is based on a study's findings, not on individual opinions, biased or otherwise. There's no mention or implication in the argument that it's grounded in personal opinions, making this option irrelevant to identifying the flaw in the pharmacist's reasoning.

C) depends on using two different meanings for the same term to draw its conclusion
- This would imply the argument is flawed due to equivocation, using a word or term in two different senses. However, the pharmacist's argument does not appear to misuse or shift meanings of terms in making its conclusion. The terms used are consistent throughout, so this option does not apply.

D) confuses an effect of a phenomenon with its cause
- At first glance, this seems plausible because the pharmacist might be seen as confusing the effect (improvement of symptoms with melatonin supplementation) with a cause (reduced melatonin production due to aging). However, the primary issue isn't exactly this confusion but rather the generalization from a specific effect to a broad conclusion without direct evidence of causation or representativeness.

E) relies on a sample that is unrepresentative
- This is the correct answer because it identifies a key flaw: generalizing from a specific study group (elderly people with insomnia) to all elderly people regarding melatonin production. The study's findings about supplementation's effectiveness in alleviating symptoms for this group do not necessarily support broader claims about age-related declines in melatonin production for all elderly individuals. This option correctly points out that the argument assumes the study's sample is representative of the broader aging population, which is a significant leap without evidence specifically addressing melatonin production rates across different ages.

Why E is Correct:
The crux of the issue lies in the generalization from specific findings (melatonin's effectiveness in a particular age group with a specific condition) to a broad conclusion about biological processes (aging leads to decreased melatonin production). E) directly addresses this flaw, highlighting that the argument assumes the study's findings about a subgroup (those with insomnia) can be extrapolated to make a general statement about aging and melatonin production, without evidence showing that the sample is truly representative of the broader population's biological aging process.