Passage Summary: A survey tried to find out if kids believe in moving things with their minds, but the question was so poorly worded that people might have just thought it meant moving things with their hands.

Conclusion: The data collected by the survey regarding teenagers' belief in telekinesis is unclear and open to interpretation.

Reasoning: The specific statement used in the survey was so vague that it could be interpreted as a common, non-psychic occurrence, making the respondents' intent impossible to determine.

Analysis: This argument identifies a flaw in methodology: the tool used to measure a belief was too blunt to actually isolate that belief. We are looking for a general principle that links the quality of a question to the quality of the resulting data. The most effective principle will state that if the language of a study is ambiguous, the conclusions drawn from that study must also be considered ambiguous.