Question

a study of 818 senior citizens shows that participants who exercise regularly exhibit less of a decline in the cognitive ability than those who barely exercise at all. from this study, a researcher infers that your cognitive ability increases the more you exercise. what is wrong with this type of reasoning? the inference dropdown imply that exercise dropdown a person’s cognitive ability. the study shows dropdown in cognitive ability.

Explanation:

1. For the first blank: The inference is making a causal claim (that exercise increases cognitive ability) from an observational study (showing less decline in exercisers). But observational studies can't prove causation, so the inference "does not" (correctly, the inference is flawed because it's overstepping—so the first blank: "does not" (because the study's data is about less decline, not proving exercise causes increase; the inference incorrectly implies causation, so the first part: the inference "cannot" (or "does not") validly imply... Wait, let's re-express. The study shows a correlation (less decline in exercisers), but the inference is a causal claim (exercise increases cognitive ability). So the inference "cannot" (or "does not") properly imply that exercise "increases" (second blank) a person's cognitive ability. The study shows "less of a decline" (third blank) in cognitive ability for exercisers, not an increase. So:

First blank: "cannot" (because the study is observational, can't prove causation, so the inference's causal claim is invalid—so the inference cannot imply causation). Second blank: "increases" (the inference is claiming exercise increases, but the study only shows less decline). Third blank: "less of a decline" (what the study actually shows).

So filling in:

The inference cannot imply that exercise increases a person’s cognitive ability. The study shows less of a decline in cognitive ability.

Answer:

First blank: cannot
Second blank: increases
Third blank: less of a decline