As Part Of His Work For Nasa, Dr. Murdock Was Asked To Find

As Part Of His Work For Nasa Dr Murdock Was Asked To Find Out What P

As part of his work for NASA, Dr. Murdock was asked to find out what percentage of people in the continental United States saw Haley's Comet when it was last visible. He randomly selected three major cities, Seattle, Cleveland, and Boston, and polled 1000 randomly selected people from these cities. He finds that fewer than 5% of the people he interviewed saw the comet, so he concludes that fewer than 5% of people in the continental United States saw the comet. Discuss whether Murdock is using a generalization or an analogy, name the sample and the target, and discuss whether there are any fallacies present in the argument (if so, why; if not, why not?).

Paper For Above instruction

This analysis examines Dr. Murdock’s conclusion regarding the percentage of people in the continental United States who saw Haley’s Comet, based on a sample from three cities. Key points include identifying whether the reasoning involves a generalization or an analogy, defining the sample and the target populations, and evaluating potential logical fallacies within the argument.

Understanding the Nature of Dr. Murdock’s Reasoning: Generalization or Analogy?

Dr. Murdock’s conclusion rests on observational data collected from three specific cities—Seattle, Cleveland, and Boston—and extends this data to the entire continental United States. This process illustrates the use of a generalization, a reasoning approach where conclusions about a larger population (the target) are drawn from data obtained from a smaller, representative subset (the sample). A generalization assumes that the sample accurately reflects the target population’s characteristics.

On the other hand, an analogy involves comparing two similar cases to infer a similarity. In this context, there is no explicit comparison of two different situations to reason about the prevalence of comet sightings. Instead, Dr. Murdock’s conclusion is based on extending findings from a sample to a broad population, characteristic of generalization rather than analogy.

Defining the Sample and the Target Population

The sample comprises 1,000 individuals randomly selected from three major cities—Seattle, Cleveland, and Boston. Each city contributes a portion of the total sample, and the selection within each city is random, ostensibly to ensure representativeness. The target population, however, is the entire continental United States, which encompasses diverse geographic regions, climates, demographics, and cultural factors that may influence whether individuals saw Haley’s Comet.

Assuming that these three cities are representative of the larger population is crucial to the validity of the generalization. If these cities are significantly different from other regions in terms of population density, reporting of astronomical events, socioeconomic factors, or cultural attitudes towards such phenomena, the generalization may be flawed.

Potential Fallacies in Dr. Murdock’s Argument

Several fallacies potentially undermine the logical strength of Dr. Murdock’s conclusion. The principal issue is the hasty generalization, which occurs when a conclusion about a large population is drawn from an insufficient or unrepresentative sample. Selecting only three cities may not provide an adequate cross-section of the entire country, especially given regional differences in population density, access to media, and astrological interest.

For instance, the chosen cities are major metropolitan areas, which tend to have higher awareness and reporting of astronomical phenomena compared to rural or less connected regions. If fewer people in these urban centers saw the comet, it does not necessarily imply the same is true nationwide. Conversely, in rural areas, where astronomical events might be more visible due to less light pollution, observations might differ significantly.

Another fallacy could be the overgeneralization. Even if the sample were perfectly representative of urban populations, extending this result to the entire country (including rural areas, different states, and regions with varying interest levels) might be unwarranted. Such broad conclusions without considering regional differences and other moderating factors risk logical inaccuracy.

Furthermore, the conclusion relies on a correlation implies causation type fallacy, which isn’t directly evident here but relates to the misinterpretation of the data. Just because a low percentage was observed in the sample doesn’t prove that the entire population shared this experience; other factors could influence sightings, such as weather conditions, cloud cover, and individual awareness or interest.

Implications and Recommendations for Accurate Reasoning

To improve the validity of such conclusions, Dr. Murdock would need to ensure that the sample is truly representative of the entire country. This involves selecting samples from diverse geographic regions, including rural and suburban areas, with considerations of demographic variables such as age, education, and interest in astronomy. Additionally, larger and stratified samples can reduce the risk of bias and provide a more accurate estimate of the proportion of the population that saw Haley’s Comet.

Statistical techniques like stratified sampling or cluster sampling can be instrumental in achieving representative samples. Moreover, complementing survey data with observational or meteorological reports would add rigor to the claim, avoiding overreliance solely on self-reported data from urban populations. Recognizing regional differences ensures that conclusions are understood within appropriate contextual bounds, thereby preventing overgeneralizations and fallacious reasoning.

Conclusion

Dr. Murdock’s use of data from three cities to estimate the entire country’s experience of Haley’s Comet exemplifies an application of generalization. However, the potential for fallacies such as hasty generalization and overgeneralization raises concerns about the validity of extending localized sample results to a vastly larger population. Accurate and reliable conclusions in such cases require more comprehensive sampling strategies, acknowledgment of regional variability, and cautious interpretation. Recognizing the limitations of the sample is crucial for avoiding unwarranted scientific or statistical fallacies, ensuring the findings are both meaningful and credible.

References

• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
• Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd.
• Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (2007). Statistics (4th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Ghosh, S. K., & Ramakrishnan, R. (2016). Statistical methods and applications. Springer.
• Lee, P. M. (2004). Making sense of statistics: A conceptual overview. SAGE Publications.
• Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (2013). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications (4th ed.). Wiley.
• Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Wasserman, L. (2004). All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference. Springer.
• Zimmerman, D. W. (2007). Correcting for criterion-referenced bias in social science research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 693-711.

}