/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 54 An article titled "Guard Your Ki... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Log out

Learning Materials

Features

Discover

Chapter 1: Problem 54

An article titled "Guard Your Kids Against Allergies: Get Them a Pet" (San Luis Obispo Tribune, August 28,2002\()\) described a study that led researchers to conclude that "babies raised with two or more animals are about half as likely to have allergies by the time they turned six." Explain why it is not reasonable to conclude that being raised with two or more animals is the cause of the observed lower allergy rate.

Short Answer

Expert verified
In conclusion, the study presents a correlation between being raised with two or more animals and lower allergy rates in children, but it is not reasonable to conclude causation. Other factors, such as genetic predisposition, parental history of allergies, or the overall living environment, may contribute to the observed lower allergy rate. The study's limitations do not allow for definitive conclusions, and further investigation and analysis are needed to establish causation.

Step by step solution

01

Identify the claim

The claim of the study is that babies raised with two or more animals are about half as likely to have allergies by the time they turn six.
02

Review the evidence

The evidence provided in the study is a correlation between being raised with two or more animals and the observed lower allergy rate in children.
03

Analyze the possible connection

The study presents a correlation between being raised with two or more animals and lower allergy rates. However, a correlation between these two factors does not necessarily imply causation. This means that just because there is a relationship between being raised with animals and lower allergy rates, it does not prove that being raised with animals is the direct cause of lower allergy rates.
04

Identify potential confounding factors or alternative explanations

There may be other factors contributing to the observed lower allergy rate that have not been taken into account in the study. For example, genetic predisposition to allergies, parental history of allergies, or overall living environment (urban vs. rural) may all play a significant role in determining a child's likelihood of developing allergies. These factors also need to be examined and controlled for in the study before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
05

Understand the limits of the study

The study can only show correlation, not causation. Therefore, concluding that being raised with two or more animals is the cause of the observed lower allergy rate is not reasonable, as there may be other factors at play that have not been taken into account. In conclusion, although the study presents a correlation between being raised with two or more animals and lower allergy rates, it is not reasonable to conclude that being raised with animals is the direct cause of the observed lower allergy rate. Further investigation and analysis of potential confounding factors and alternative explanations are needed to establish causation.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Statistical Study Limitations
When looking at studies like the one concerning children raised with animals and their allergy rates, it's important to acknowledge the limitations such studies may have. Statistical studies, while useful, don't always provide all the answers we're looking for. Here are a few reasons why such limitations exist:
  • Sample Size: Sometimes, the group of people or subjects studied isn't large enough to represent the larger population. A small sample size can lead to results that are not reliable.
  • Study Design: The way a study is set up can affect the results. If the study didn't take all variables into account or didn't follow participants long enough, its conclusions could be flawed.
  • Lack of Randomization: Without randomly selecting participants, there could be biases in the study, which means the results might not be as trustworthy.
Recognizing these limitations is crucial to understanding what a study can truly tell us. In the case of the allergy study, these are some reasons why we can't definitively say that raised with animals causes fewer allergies.
Confounding Variables
Confounding variables are factors other than those being studied that might influence the results. In the study about children and allergies, confounding variables might make it appear that being around animals affects allergies when it might not. Consider these possible confounding variables:
  • Genetic Factors: Children might inherit a tendency for fewer allergies from their parents, which has nothing to do with pet exposure.
  • Environmental Differences: Kids raised in rural areas, where keeping animals is more common, might naturally have a different exposure to allergens than those in city environments.
  • Parental Lifestyle: Families with pets might have different lifestyle and dietary habits that contribute to lower allergy rates instead of the pets themselves.
Understanding confounding variables is essential for interpreting study results accurately, as they help in discerning whether a relationship observed is genuine or the result of overlooked factors.
Causation Analysis
Causation analysis goes beyond identifying relationships. It's about proving that one thing leads to another. In science, showing causation means proving that changes in one variable directly cause changes in another. Here鈥檚 why distinguishing causation from correlation is important:
  • Direct Relationship Proving: To prove causation, researchers must show direct evidence that one thing results in another. This often requires controlled experiments that aren't always possible in observational studies.
  • Experimental Control: In an experimental setting, researchers control variables to eliminate confounding factors to see if the cause-effect relationship holds.
  • Reproducibility: Causal relationships should hold across different studies, proving consistent results in various settings.
In the allergy example, without this kind of analysis, the claim about having pets reducing allergies has weak grounds. More research would be required to establish a causal link definitively. Observing a correlation is just the beginning when it comes to establishing cause and effect.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The article "Heartfelt Thanks to Fido" (San Luis Obispo Tribune, July 5,2003 ) summarized a study that appeared in the American Journal of Cardiology (March 15, 2003). In this study, researchers measured heart rate variability (a measure of the heart's ability to handle stress) in patients who had recovered from a heart attack. They found that heart rate variability was higher (which is good and means the heart can handle stress better) for those who owned a dog than for those who did not. a. Based on this study, is it reasonable to conclude that owning a dog causes higher heart rate variability? Explain. b. Is it reasonable to generalize the results of this study to all adult Americans? Explain why or why not.

The article "Why We Fall for This" (AARP Magazine, May/June 2011) described a study in which a business professor divided his class into two groups. He showed students a mug and then asked students in one of the groups how much they would pay for the mug. Students in the other group were asked how much they would sell the mug for if it belonged to them. Surprisingly, the average values assigned to the mug were quite different for the two groups! Indicate whether the study is an observational study or an experiment. Give a brief explanation for your choice.

The article "Doctor Dogs Diagnose Cancer by Sniffing It Out" (Knight Ridder Newspapers, January 9, 2006) refers to an experiment described in the journal Integrative Cancer Therapies. In this experiment, dogs were trained to distinguish between people with breast and lung cancer and people without cancer by sniffing exhaled breath. Dogs were trained to lie down if they detected cancer in a breath sample. After training, the dogs' ability to detect cancer was tested using breath samples from people whose breath had not been used in training the dogs. The paper states, "The researchers blinded both the dog handlers and the experimental observers to the identity of the breath samples." Explain why this blinding is an important aspect of the design of this experiment.

Suppose that you would like to know if keyboard design has an effect on wrist angle, as shown in the accompanying figure. You have 40 volunteers who have agreed to participate in an experiment to compare two different keyboards. Describe the steps in a process that you could use to randomly assign each of the volunteers to one of the experimental groups.

1.33 A study of college students showed a temporary gain of up to nine IQ points after listening to a Mozart piano sonata. This result, dubbed the Mozart effect, has since been criticized by a number of researchers who have been unable to confirm the result in similar studies. Suppose that you want to determine if there is really is a Mozart effect. You decide to carry out an experiment with three experimental groups. One group will listen to a Mozart piano sonata that lasts 24 minutes. The second group will listen to popular music for the same length of time, and the third group will relax for 24 minutes with no music playing. You will measure IQ before and after the 24 minute period. Suppose that you have 45 volunteers who have agreed to participate in the experiment. Describe the steps in a process you could use to randomly assign each of the volunteers to one of the experimental groups.
See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

Pure Maths

Read Explanation

Probability and Statistics

Read Explanation

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

Read Explanation

Applied Mathematics

Read Explanation

Calculus

Read Explanation

Mechanics Maths

Read Explanation
View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.