@al2006 ! 1there is a new brand of water on the market that has been proven to relieve headaches. it is selling like crazy! when the food and drug administration asked for scientific proof that the water actually does what it claims to do, the owners of the company produced a scientific research study that they had paid a group of scientists to perform. in the study researchers gave this special water to a group of 50 people who claimed to have a headache. the people drank the special water whenever they felt thirsty over a period of 24 hours. after the 24 hours, 99% of the people reported that their headache was gone. should the food and drug administration trust this scientific study and allow the company to sell the water with this claim? would this be an example of science or pseudoscience? support your answer with at least three reasons.

The FDA never settles a product marketing claim based on only one study.

Here are some possible problems with this one that jump out at us:

1). It's a pity that this has to be considered, but it's true:  When a scientific study is sponsored (paid for) by anybody who has a money interest in the result of the study, there's a strong possibility that the researchers could be  influenced to tilt the study in the direction that their sponsor will like.  This kind of study always gets less respect than a study with an independent source of funding.

2). "50 people" is actually a very small sample for a medical investigation.  Five thousand would be more like it if you want results that are statistically significant.

3). "99%" is very, very suspicious. In a properly designed and controlled experiment, you probably could not get 99% agreement that the sky is blue. This kind of experimental result is very fishy, and should be enough to toss out the whole study.

statement #3 on andre"s list is false.