Critical Thinking: DrinkableStbrik Sunscreen Due Monday by 2:30pm Points 10 Subm

Question

Critical Thinking: DrinkableStbrik Sunscreen Due Monday by 2:30pm Points 10 Submitting a text entry box or a file upload Available Apr 2 at 12am - Apr 9 at 2:30pm 8 days Osmosis Skincare's UV Neutralizer Harmonized Water is a new product that is a drinkable product that can serve as the equivalent to SPF 30 sunscreen, doing away with the uncomfortable slippery-stickiness most people endure on outings to the beach. It claims to protect a user's skin by changing "frequencies" of water molecules just below their skin. More information on this product can be found here:

Explanation / Answer

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) (1) Let us assume that we come across a vendor that is selling us a time machine. In order for us to make the purchase and spend a great sum of money, one would require a demonstration. If one were to buy a cup of yogurt that claimed to be nutritious, a demonstration would probably not be necessary. This is because in the latter scenario, the claim is not too outrageous and the product, along with its claims is highly conceivable.

In the case of a sunscreen that can be drunk, the product is surely unusual and the claim is equally absurd. This is why, the consumer might want to know more about the science behind the product, the lab results etc.

(2) Human’s tend to tan upon contact with the sun because the cells basically kill themselves in order to protect the skin from irreversible damage from the UV rays. Sunscreen lotion forms a protective layer on the skin and helps avoid or decrease the amount of damage that the sun would cause to the skin. It is the sun protection formula or SPF that contains the chemicals necessary to help the skin cells. This SPF formula is poisonous to consume.

Secondly, it is highly far-fetched, that the frequency of the skin cells can be changed on a cellular level through the consumption of a drink. This is something that might occur if the drink were radioactive perhaps. However, dermatological medication for tanning is generally topical because the issue is not due to hormonal spurts or allergies but rather it is to do with the sun and skin cells. This claim is most probably false.

(3) Ockham’s Razor – In order to carve out the hypotheses that seem fictitious, it is necessary to start at the basics. In this particular case, the basic claim itself is enough to qualify. The drinkable sunscreen claims to connect the merits of the digestive system with the workings of the nervous system and ultimately with skin tissue itself.

However, the problem of tanning is an external issue that is brought about by the sun. A dermatologist might offer medication for pimples because the problem is hormonal or even medication for allergy rashes since it is to do with the immune system. However, when the cause is external, it becomes essential to offer medication that would protect the body from the external attack.

Secondly, changing the frequency of the skin cells to adapt to the frequency of the sun is something entirely absurd. These are the reasons why the claim seems untrue.

(4) Lab rats are generally exposed to certain conditions and their behaviour towards those conditions is recorded. When this is done, the researchers come up with theories and hypotheses based on their observation. This behaviour should form an established pattern. For instance, if the research would be conducted again with other mice, the pattern of behaviour should be the same. If this takes place, then the claim is legitimate.

Therefore, if the same chemicals and making procedure were to be adopted, would it result in the same product that followed the same claims? That is the pivotal question that might prove the validity of the claim.

(5) The rival hypothesis, in this case, is all the sunscreen creams on the market that claim to protect one’s skin. If these products do not do, as they say, it means that this age-old method of protecting one’s skin is flawed. However, this method does work. Sunscreen does protect one’s skin from sunburn. This means that the established method is not false. Therefore, if the rival products are valid, it must mean that it would take an equal amount of validity to beat the rival. In this case, however, the product has not proven to be of a logical course and probably a false claim.

(6) If John Doe drinks the new sunscreen product and does not get sunburn on the beach, it might because the product works. However, this correlation does not consider any other external factors that might have actually affected the consumer’s skin.

Was the sun harsh enough? Is John Doe prone to sunburn? Did John Doe wear protective clothing? Did he wear external sunscreen?

All of these questions and many more need to be answered before establishing a causal relationship between drinking the sunscreen and damage-free skin. Any other factor that affects this change is a confounding variable. This is when another element is responsible for the causal relationship and not the previously assumed variable.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.