Question.5040 - Week 4Evaluating Inductive ReasoningDiscussionRequired ResourcesRead/review the following resources for this activity:Textbook: Chapter 11 Lesson Instructional material in the Workbook Articles:What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?Links to an external site. (National Institute on Aging., n.d.)Myopia and Ambient Lighting at NightLinks to an external site. (Quinn et al., 1999)Myopia and Ambient Night-Time LightingLinks to an external site. (Zadnik et al., 2000)Initial Post InstructionsIntroductionAs the text (Bassham, 2023) points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause-and-effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies. In 1999, a study (Quinn et al., 1999) on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature. The study received widespread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings. For this initial post, using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources, you may find useful (including the articles in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies—Quinn et al. (1999) and Zadnik et al. (2000)—and how methodology affected the differences in the conclusions the researchers arrived at. Address these requirements in your initial post:Which of the studies do you find more persuasiveExplain why you found one of the studies more persuasive. For example, How each of the studies was designed? Were the studies generalizations, causal studies, or comparative studies? How did the designs differ, and why did they yield entirely different results?How was data collected?What were the variables in each study?Remember, your post should exhibit an understanding of causal reasoning, inductive reasoning based on statistics, and analogical reasoning (how these studies are alike and how they differ).Hint: Newspaper reports about both studies can be found through an Internet search using all of the following terms: <Philadelphia myopia night lights>.Follow-up Post InstructionsRespond to one of your peers or to the instructor. In responding to your peer, look for and comment on the strengths and weaknesses in his or her post.Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.Does your peer correctly explain the details of the methodology of the two studies?Does your explanation differ? How? Who is correct? Writing RequirementsMinimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up) Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source). These must to cited in-text within your post AND listed as references at the end of your post. APA format for in-text citations and list of references GradingThis activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Review: Discussion GuidelinesOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReaderReview the specific grading rubric by clicking on the three dots in the upper right corner. Course OutcomesCO 1: Define critical reasoning for application to personal and professional problem-solving. CO 3: Analyze deductive and inductive reasoning structures. CO 4: Evaluate arguments by applying tests of truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity.
Answer Below:
Initial xxxx Evaluating xxx Methodology xx Quinn xx al xxx Zadnik xx al xx Myopia xxx Night xxxxxxxxxxx Quinn xx al xxxxx concluded xxxx infants xxx slept xxxx a xxxxx light xxxx significantly xxxx likely xx develop xxxxxx nearsightedness xx the xxx of xxx This xxx a xxxxxx study xxxxx on xxxxxxxxxxxxx data xxxxxxxxx via xxxxxxxx questionnaires xx received xxxx media xxxxxxxx largely xxxxxxx it xxxxxxx a xxxxxx link xxxxxxx ambient xxxxxxxx during xxxxxxx and xxx later xxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxx problems xxxxxxx the xxxxxxx methodology xxxxxx control xxx confounding xxxxxxxxx particularly xxxxxxxx myopia xxxxx has x strong xxxxxxx influence xx childhood xxxxxx Zadnik xx al xxxxxxxxx a xxxxxxxxx study xxxx a xxxx rigorous xxxxxx It xxx a xxxxxxxxxxx study xxxx included x larger xxx more xxxxxxx sample xxx crucially xxxxxxxxxx for xxxxxxxx vision xxxxxx Their xxxxxxxx contradicted xxx earlier xxxxx showing xx significant xxxxxxxxxxxx between xxxxx lighting xxx the xxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxx Instead xxxx found xxxx parental xxxxxx not xxxxxxxx was xxx primary xxxxxxxxx Data xx this xxxxx were xxxxxxxxx more xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with xxxxxx consideration xx genetic xxx environmental xxxxxxx leading xx more xxxxxxxx conclusions x find xxx Zadnik xx al xxxxx more xxxxxxxxxx due xx its xxxxxxxx methodological xxxxxxxxx better xxxxxxxx control xxx broader xxxxxx size xxxx demonstrates x key xxxxxx in xxxxxx reasoning xxxxxxx ruling xxx confounding xxxxxxxxx one xxxxxx reliably xxxxx causation xxxxx Quinn xx al xxxx a xxxxxxxxx generalization xxxxxx et xx corrected xxx narrative xxxxx more xxxxxx scientific xxxxxxxxx ReferencesBassham x Critical xxxxxxxx A xxxxxxxxx introduction xx ed xxxxxxxxxxx Education xxxxx G x Shin x H xxxxxxx M x Stone x A xxxxxx and xxxxxxx lighting xx night xxxxxx - xxxxx doi xxx Zadnik x Jones x A xxxxx B x et xx Myopia xxx ambient xxxxxxxxxx lighting xxxxxx https xxx orgMore Articles From Critical Reasoning PHIL 347
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
