Question Type:
Match the Flaw
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The treatment is probably not actually effective.
Evidence: The treatment was used in three separate studies, whose results were positive but which each had critical methodological flaws.
Answer Anticipation:
I would be tempted to simply pre-phrase the classic,
"EVEN THOUGH premise, COULDN'T IT BE TRUE THAT anti-conc".
"Even though the studies had methodological flaws, isn't it possible that the treatment was still effective?"
How would we put this into something abstract? Maybe they want an author thinking, "Because the PROCESS was flawed, the RESULTS can't be positive/trusted."
Correct Answer:
A
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Maybe? This sounds like "because process was flawed, outcome was negative."
(B) This would almost work if you reversed the pieces. Here, the PREMISE is about a bad outcome and the CONCLUSION is about a questionable methodology.
(C) This premise doesn't sound anything like bad process / method.
(D) This premise doesn't sound anything like bad process / method.
(E) Definitely not as good as (A). We might be able to say that "having people with a financial stake involved" is a bad methodology for city development, but that's a stretch. This flaw sounds more like, "Because a decision maker has a selfish motivation, the decision will be purely selfish."
Takeaway/Pattern: It's easy to imagine how the same objection would work with (A):
"EVEN THOUGH they didn't have uniform criteria, COULDN'T IT BE TRUE that they still selected a good cake?"
You might get to a good outcome through a sloppy process.
#officialexplanation