65 LR One Question 20
- « 65 LR One Question 19
- 2204 of 3815
- 65 LR One Question 21 »
Comments
Hm. I don't see it, but maybe I'm missing it. Where do you see the sampling error?
On re-watching, I remembers another video I've recently watched. The argument says that the TV show is biased because it interviewed the same number of people from each side of a political election.
Is this argument also commits a causal flaw?
As to the sampling error, I'm thing like this: because the newspaper only reports dramatic findings, and the newspaper report on small trials more often than large trials, the proportion must be representative of the actual proportion of small vs. large trials that have dramatic findings in general.
1. OK, yeah, I think I see what you're saying about sampling, and I think it's a fair assessment.
2. I don't understand these two sentences:
1. "The argument says that the TV show is biased because it interviewed the same number of people from each side of a political election." Surely the argument claimed a TV show was unbiased, or that it did not interview the same number of people, right?
2. "Is this argument also commits a causal flaw?" If you mean 65.1.20, then yes. If you mean the TV argument, I don't know; where did you find it?
I understand the flaw, but I'm really having a hard time understanding the correct answer. How does it "overlook the possibility that small obs studies are far more common than large randomized studies" if the prompt literally says "newspaper studies are more frequent than newspaper stories about large randomized studies"?
The number of stories does not tell us about the number of studies.
For example, opening the news yesterday (Sep 8, 2022) I was bombarded with, like, 38 stories about the death of QEII. That doesn't mean that she died 38 times!
Make sense?