1. Deconstruct the Argument (Audit the Logic)
- The Setup: A trial with $\(\sim 1000\)$ patients divided into two groups (half prayed for, half not).
- The Premise: Community volunteers prayed remotely for 28 days, knowing only first names. Daily progress/decline was charted. Each patient received a numerical score upon discharge or death.
- The Observation (Fact): The patients who were prayed for had a $10 %$ higher score.
- The Doctors' Conclusion (Claim): This $10 %$ higher score is "evidence of the existence of God."


2. Evaluate the Options (The Elimination Protocol)
- (A) Coronary disease is frequently fatal.
- Analysis: This just describes the disease's severity. It applies to both groups of patients. It doesn't help explain why the prayed-for group did better, nor does it support the divine conclusion.
- Action: Eliminate. (Irrelevant)
- (B) The community volunteers imparting intercessory prayers were noble souls.
- Analysis: "Noble souls" is subjective, undefined, and scientifically irrelevant. This doesn't provide a logical or data-driven basis for the trial's results being proof of God. This is an "emotional appeal" trap.
- Action: Eliminate. (Weak/Vague)
- (C) $62 %$ of all the patients were over age sixty.
- Analysis: This is demographic data about all the patients. Unless we know the specific age breakdown within each group, this information is useless. If one group had more old people than the other, that would weaken the study (an imbalance), not strengthen the claim.
- Action: Eliminate. (Irrelevant/Out of Scope)

- (D) National medical authorities accept that the results of the trial were statistically significant.
- Analysis: This is the correct answer. The doctors' claim is based entirely on the " $10 \%$ higher score." In statistics, you must determine if a difference is meaningful or if it could have happened just by chance. A result that is "statistically significant" means it is highly likely that the observed effect (the $10 \%$ difference) is real and not due to simple random chance. This choice validates the foundational data upon which the doctors build their entire claim. Without this confirmation, the $10 \%$ difference could be dismissed as meaningless noise.
- Action: Winner.
- (E) The intercessory prayers were supervised by representatives from three different religions.
- Analysis: This adds detail about how the prayers were conducted. While ecumenical, this detail doesn't speak to the validity, accuracy, or significance of the results. It doesn't make the $10 \%$ difference more reliable or supportive of the main claim.
- Action: Eliminate. (Irrelevant)

3. Final Logic Check

The argument's logic chain is: $10 %$ Result → Evidence of God.
This entire chain collapses if the " $10 %$ " is just a statistical accident (a "type-1 error"). Choice (D) confirms that the result is not likely an accident; it is "statistically significant." By making the foundational fact look robust and "real," it provides the essential basis for the doctors to use it as evidence for their claim.

Correct Answer: (D)