In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves.
So you can’t use it as an argument that it isn’t spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject.
Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings.
As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking.
I’d say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking.
In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves.
So you can’t use it as an argument that it isn’t spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject.
Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings.
It isn’t spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve.
Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article?
Because AI bad!