Q4 - Physician: In an experiment,

[jardinsouslapluie5]

I was hesitant to choose (A).

Because the stimulus did not directly address that both group knows that they are getting magnets or not.
But then, I was wondering, this is "magnets" which is visible and it is inevitable not to notice so it implies that they knew?
I mean, magnets are on their back...

If this were a medication which people didn't know what ingredients were in it, this (A) is pretty jumping assumption, no?

[timmydoeslsat]

Watch what happens when you substitute magnet therapy for medication.

For an experiment, doctors split up a group 30 people with chronic arm pain into two different rooms. Room number 1 received no treatment. The other group in Room 2 received a new experimental pill. Very few people in Room 1 stated that their arm pain felt better. The second group had a majority of people that stated their arm felt better. This shows that the new pill is effective at relieving some arm pain.

It still suffers the same fate. We have a correlation-causation issue. What is causing these people in the second group to feel better? Perhaps it is just like what (A) states. If this is true, this weakens the idea that the pill, or in this case, the magnet, caused the relief in back pain.

[shirando21]

I am not familiar with this question type when it asks which one of the following, if true, constitutes the logically strongest counter to the physician's argument?

I remember missing another question which asks the same question, it was about taxi driver.

What question type does this fall into? what are the steps we should use to solve this kind of questions?

Is it a weaken question?

[timmydoeslsat]

Yes it is a weakening question. This one is about weakening a cause and effect. The correct answer in this case shows an alternative cause.

[shirando21]

Yes it is a weakening question. This one is about weakening a cause and effect. The correct answer in this case shows an alternative cause.

Thanks a lot!!!!

[justindebouvier7]

Premise:50 patients split up into two groups. One group received magnets to their backs while the other received no treatment.

Premise: Majority of patients in group one reported significant reduction in pain. Very few in second group reported pain.

Conclusion: Magnetic fields are probably effective at relieving some back pain.

The author implies that the correlation between the application of a magnet on one's back seems to reduce the pain. However, one of the ways to break a causation is to show that there may be an alternate explanation for the observed phenomenon. That's precisely what answer choice A does.

A is saying that it isn't really that the magnetic fields are effective at relieving back pain but rather the idea of treatment can lead to improvement in condition. Although I don't feel that answer A is perfect, however, I believe that it is much better than the other answer choices.

(B) This isn't relevant what the physicians believe.Even if this was true, it doesn't weaken the idea that magnetic fields are effective at reducing back pain.
(C) Who cares if no other experiments have been done showing that magnetic field reduce pain in any area OTHER THAN THE BACK. This is a horrible choice for two reasons. First, just because it hasn't been shown in experiments doesn't mean that it couldn't be effective. Second, we're concerned with the back not any area other than the back.
(D) Who cares what the scientists thought?
(E) We don't care about the cause of the chronic back pain, we care about the magnetic fields effectively reducing the back pain.