Loading...
A large-scale study of adults over fifty years old who spent an average of four to eleven hours a day sitting found that the mortality rates of those who spent less time sitting were consistently lower over three years - even after controlling for age, weight, general health, and exercise frequency, all of which affect mortality rates. The researchers concluded that most adults over fifty years old could lower their mortality risk over the next three years just by spending less time sitting.
In order to assess the strength of the researchers' reasoning, it would be most helpful to know whether most adults over fifty years old
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A large-scale study of adults over fifty years old who spent an average of four to eleven hours a day sitting found that the mortality rates of those who spent less time sitting were consistently lower over three years |
|
| even after controlling for age, weight, general health, and exercise frequency, all of which affect mortality rates |
|
| The researchers concluded that most adults over fifty years old could lower their mortality risk over the next three years just by spending less time sitting. |
|
The argument starts with study evidence showing a connection between sitting time and mortality rates, then adds credibility by noting other factors were controlled for, and finally jumps to a broad conclusion about what most adults over 50 can do to reduce mortality risk.
Most adults over fifty years old could lower their mortality risk over the next three years just by spending less time sitting.
The researchers use the study results as evidence to support their conclusion, but there's a logical gap - they're applying findings from people who sit 4-11 hours daily to 'most adults over fifty' without knowing if most adults actually fall into this sitting range or have similar characteristics to the study participants.
Evaluate - We need to think of assumptions that could either strengthen or weaken the researchers' conclusion when taken to extremes
The conclusion claims 'most adults over fifty years old' could lower mortality risk 'just by spending less time sitting' - this is a broad population claim with a simple causation assumption
The researchers are making a huge leap from their study participants (who sat 4-11 hours daily) to ALL adults over 50. We need to find what assumption would make or break this generalization. The key gap is whether the general population of adults over 50 is similar enough to the study participants for this conclusion to hold true.
This asks whether adults who sit less exercise more frequently. However, the study already controlled for exercise frequency, so this information wouldn't help us assess the strength of the reasoning. The researchers have already accounted for exercise as a factor, making this irrelevant to evaluating their conclusion.
This asks whether most adults spend less than eleven hours sitting. This doesn't help evaluate the reasoning because even if adults sit less than 11 hours, they could still be within the 4-11 hour range studied. Knowing they sit less than the upper limit doesn't tell us if the study applies to them.
This asks about the relationship between poor health and sitting time. While interesting, this doesn't address the core gap in reasoning - whether the study results can be generalized to most adults over fifty. The study already controlled for general health, so this additional correlation wouldn't strengthen or weaken the conclusion.
This directly addresses the critical gap in the researchers' reasoning. The study only examined people who sat 4-11 hours daily, but the conclusion applies to 'most adults over fifty.' If most adults over fifty don't even sit 4 hours daily, then the study findings wouldn't apply to them, making the broad conclusion invalid. If most do sit at least 4 hours daily, then the generalization becomes more reasonable. This information is essential for assessing the strength of the reasoning.
This asks about consistency in participants' daily sitting hours during the study. While this might affect the study's internal validity, it doesn't address whether the results can be generalized to the broader population of adults over fifty, which is the main logical gap in the researchers' reasoning.