PrepTest 44, Section 2, Question 20
Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.
Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.
Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.
Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the scientist's argument?
Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.
It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.
Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behavior simply because they act impulsively.
Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.
The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.
Explanations
Horrible argument, Mr. Scientist.
I'm willing to grant you the results of your research findings that kids who behave like thrill-seeking adults are twice as likely to have this dopamine-sensitive gene variant.
But I reject your conclusion wholeheartedly. Just because these things are correlated doesn't mean this gene variant is responsible for increasing thrill-seeking behavior.
We're asked to weaken this argument, so it should be pretty easy. If we can find an alternate cause for the gene variant and thrill-seeking, or if we can establish that the thrill-seeking produces the gene variant, we'll blow this argument up.
Let's see.
Nah. Many just means some. This tells me essentially nothing about whether or not the gene variant leads to thrill-seeking behavior. Moreover, we know nothing about the rates adults have this variant, just the kids.
This works. Not what I expected, but this destroys the author's argument. If it's impossible to discern between impulsive behavior and other behavior, then how can we possibly draw conclusions about what causes impulsive behavior?
Nope. Cool story, bro... but this tells me nothing about the relationship between this gene variant and thrill-seeking behavior. This could be true and the gene could still the underlying cause despite the characterization provided by some adults.
No way. If the impulsive behaviors are said to come from a gene variant, then we would expect the behavior to be something intrinsic to each person with the variant, not for it to be dormant until adulthood.
Nah. All this tells me is that our mistaken scientist is equally likely to (incorrectly) infer causality between this gene variant and the other types of correlated behavior.
0 Comments