Q4 - Biologist: A careful study of the

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: We should trust the results of the study, despite the small sample size.
Evidence: The study's author has a good professional reputation.

Any prephrase?
The conclusion is just wrong because it's too strong. Critics are wrong to DOUBT the results? Sure, the author of this study has done great work, but everyone has an off day. No one is perfect. It's legitimate to have some doubt, even if someone has a stellar reputation. More specific answers might dig into the implicit assumption that THIS study shares characteristics with the excellent work the study's author has done in the past. We're essentially assuming, "Since he's done good work before, THIS STUDY is also good work." We could weaken that with meaningful differences between this study and past work.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) The argument core really has nothing to do with chameleons.

B) Same as A.

C) Sure this sounds good. This argument was like Ad Hominem, but instead of dismissing an author based on them having a shady track record, it dismissed criticism of a person based on the person having a stellar track record. Same flaw -- "let's not judge something based on past history ... let's evaluate this case on its own merits.

D) The author doesn't need to establish that the critics have expertise. The author is countering them, not using them as evidence.

E) There's no way to compare what standard the author holds the critics to vs. the study's author. "Holding someone to a high standard" means "carefully scrutinizing their work and expecting the best". Our author is definitely not doing that for the study's author. Our author is blindly trusting that the study's author has done good work, yet again. So if anything, our author holds the study's author to a pretty low standard. People might like this answer if they read it as "our author has a higher opinion of the study's author than she does of the critics", but that's not what it means.

Takeaway/Pattern: We could have described this flaw as "just because something was true in the past [excellent work], doesn't mean it's true this time [small sample size in chameleon experiment]." Or we could describe it in the Ad Hominem style that (C) did.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Why is E wrong?
I thought it is kind of similar to C...
The author mistakenly appeal to the authority, believing it's quality right?

[TJG209]

i believe the Correct Answer is C.

Please double check when posting your answers.