Loading...
In a ten-year study, one group of volunteers was given a medical screening for disease X every year, whereas an otherwise similar group of the same size was only screened for disease X at the end of the study. Nine percent of the first group were diagnosed with disease X during the study and received treatment, but only six percent of the second group were diagnosed with disease X when they received the screening at the end of the study. The researchers concluded that during the ten-year period, disease X must have disappeared without medical treatment in some individuals in the second group.
In order to evaluate the strength of the researcher's reasoning, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In a ten-year study, one group of volunteers was given a medical screening for disease X every year, whereas an otherwise similar group of the same size was only screened for disease X at the end of the study. |
|
| Nine percent of the first group were diagnosed with disease X during the study and received treatment, but only six percent of the second group were diagnosed with disease X when they received the screening at the end of the study. |
|
| The researchers concluded that during the ten-year period, disease X must have disappeared without medical treatment in some individuals in the second group. |
|
The argument starts by describing a study design that compares two screening approaches, then presents the numerical results showing different diagnosis rates, and finally offers the researchers' explanation for why the rates differed.
Disease X must have disappeared naturally without medical treatment in some people from the group that was only screened at the end of the study.
The researchers use the \(3\%\) difference in diagnosis rates (\(9\%\) vs \(6\%\)) as evidence that some people in the second group naturally recovered from disease X during the ten-year period. They assume the lower rate in Group 2 means people had the disease but it went away on its own before the final screening.
Evaluate - We need to find information that would help us judge whether the researchers' conclusion is valid or not
The researchers make a specific quantitative claim about disease disappearance based on a \(3\%\) difference in diagnosis rates (\(9\%\) vs \(6\%\)) between two screening approaches
For evaluate questions, we need to think of assumptions underlying the conclusion and create scenarios that would either strengthen or weaken the reasoning when we get more information. The researchers assume the \(3\%\) difference means disease X disappeared naturally in some people from group 2. We should think of alternative explanations for this difference that would make us question or support this conclusion.
Whether there were statistically significant lifestyle differences between diagnosed and non-diagnosed individuals doesn't help us evaluate the researchers' specific conclusion about disease disappearance. The researchers are comparing two groups with different screening schedules, not comparing diagnosed vs non-diagnosed individuals within groups. Lifestyle differences wouldn't explain why the same disease would disappear naturally in one group versus another.
Knowing how many people volunteered because of high risk doesn't help evaluate the conclusion. Even if some volunteers had higher risk, this would affect both groups equally since they're described as 'otherwise similar.' This information doesn't address whether the \(\mathrm{3\%}\) difference in diagnosis rates supports the conclusion about natural disease disappearance.
How long treatment takes is irrelevant to evaluating whether disease X disappeared naturally. The researchers' conclusion focuses on what happened in the untreated second group before they received any screening. Treatment duration doesn't help us assess whether the lower diagnosis rate in group 2 truly indicates natural recovery.
Whether volunteers knew what disease they were being screened for might affect their behavior, but this doesn't help evaluate the core reasoning. Both groups would be equally affected by this knowledge, so it doesn't explain the \(\mathrm{3\%}\) difference in diagnosis rates or help us assess whether this difference supports the natural disappearance conclusion.
This is exactly what we need to evaluate the researchers' reasoning. If the medical screening frequently produces false positive diagnoses, then the \(\mathrm{9\%}\) rate in group 1 (yearly screening) could be artificially inflated with incorrect diagnoses, making the \(\mathrm{3\%}\) difference less meaningful as evidence of natural disease disappearance. If the screening is highly accurate, then the difference becomes more significant support for the conclusion. This information directly helps us assess whether the observed difference truly indicates natural recovery or could be explained by screening errors.