Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEquivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

Medical researcher: When evaluated against a placebo in our most recent large-scale trial, the experimental allergy medication reduced the frequency of symptomatic episodes by a statistically significant margin. Therefore, health professionals should recommend this medication as a replacement for current over-the-counter treatments, because patients will obviously benefit from experiencing such a significant improvement in their daily routines.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the medical researcher's reasoning?

  1. A
    treats a finding that is sufficient to prove the experimental medication has some physiological effect as one that is necessary to justify its recommendation
  2. B
    confuses an intermediate claim about the medication's performance in a controlled trial with the main conclusion regarding its suitability for public use
  3. shifts illicitly from using a term to indicate that a study's results were unlikely to have occurred by chance to using that same term to indicate that an effect is practically meaningfulAnswer
  4. D
    takes for granted that the observed reduction in symptomatic episodes was caused by the experimental medication rather than by natural variations in the patients' conditions
  5. E
    derives a conclusion about the superiority of the new medication by unlawfully reversing a conditional relationship between symptom reduction and medical recommendations

Answer

The argument trades on an ambiguity in the word 'significant', using it in a statistical sense in the premise and in a practical, everyday sense in the conclusion.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the premise, 'statistically significant' simply means the data shows a measurable difference that is not due to statistical noise or chance—even if the actual reduction in symptoms is microscopic. In the conclusion, the researcher uses 'significant improvement' to mean a major, noticeable change in patients' daily lives. The argument falsely equates these two entirely different meanings of 'significant' to justify replacing current treatments.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise: The medication reduced symptoms by a 'statistically significant' margin. Conclusion: It should replace current treatments because it provides a 'significant improvement'.
Separating the evidence from the claim helps isolate the logical gap.
2
Evaluate the relationship between the premise and the conclusion for vulnerabilities.
The conclusion assumes that the mathematical certainty of the result (statistical significance) equates to a large, life-changing magnitude of relief (practical significance).
An argument must logically bridge its evidence to its conclusion without changing the meaning of key concepts.
3
Identify the specific logical fallacy being committed based on the vulnerability.
The argument commits an equivocation fallacy by shifting the meaning of the word 'significant' halfway through the reasoning.
A term cannot have two distinct meanings within the same logical proof without invalidating the conclusion.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this semantic shift.
The correct option highlights the shift from 'unlikely to have occurred by chance' to 'practically meaningful'.
This precisely matches the equivocation identified in the text without introducing outside assumptions.

Key Concept

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Rate this question

Topics

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

More questions from this topic