Answer: your question is not complete, please let me assume this to be your complete question.
A medical researcher wants to determine whether exercising can lower blood pressure. At a health fair, he measures-the blood pressure of 100 individuals, and interviews them about their exercise habits. He divides the individuals into two categories: those whose typical level of exercise is low, and those whose level of exercise is high.
a. Is this a controlled experiment or an observational study?
b. The subjects in the low exercise group had considerably higher blood pressure, on the average, than subjects in the high exercise group. The researcher concludes that exercise decreases blood pressure. Is this conclusion well-justified? Explain.
ANSWERS:
a. This is an observational study because, the medical researcher, has gotten into his research to observe if exercise has any impact on blood pressure, and not to find a cure.
b. The conclusion is not well justified because of the following reasons;
• It has not yet gone through scientific proof, in a lab or workshop, it is still under observation.
• Her result show on the average that means her conclusion did not imply to everyone she interviewed.
• Her conclusion is fallacious. She has committed a "fallacy of hasty generalization" that is taking an experience from a set people, to be the same on everyone. She has only measured 100 individual out of the billions of individual living in the world, and she is taking her conclusion from 100 persons to be applicable to more than billions of people she has not measured.
