- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 17, 2016 3:00 pm
#24992
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
The local resident in this stimulus has noticed that the few times he has seen many dead fish wash ashore in the summer, the pond has also had an abnormally large amount of algae. From this fact, the resident concludes that the algae must be harmful to the small fish. This is a causal argument, and can be diagrammed as follows:
The resident supports the causal argument only by his observations of a correlation between the existence of the abnormal amount algae and the abnormal number of dead fish. The author does not provide additional information leading that would support the causal relationship in the conclusion. In a causal relationship, the cause must occur before the effect, and the cause must directly lead to the effect. The author’s argument is flawed because the author does not eliminate an alternate cause for the harm to the fish, nor does he or she eliminate a common cause for both occurrences. Finally, there is the possibility that the dead fish are somehow causing the overabundance of algae in the pond. The author fails to address any of the above alternate explanations for the correlation.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus provides no information about large fish. The pond may only contain small fish, or perhaps the author did not care about the death of larger fish. In either case, the author does not say that the small fish are unusually susceptible to harm from algae. Therefore, this cannot be the correct flaw.
Answer choice (B): The resident’s argument is only focused on the impact of algae in this pond. The fact that small fish may fare better in a larger body of water is not relevant to the causal conclusion drawn about the way the algae harms fish in the resident’s pond.
Answer choice (C): As with answer choice (A), this answer choice incorrectly applies the causal relationship to large fish. The resident’s argument is limited to small fish in the local pond. Answer choices, like this, that address a broader conclusion are incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As explained above, the author only supports that the death of small fish and the overabundance of algae tend to occur at the same time. The resident does not adequately address the possibility that there might be a common cause to both events that cause them to occur together, but where the algae do not directly cause the fish death.
Answer choice (E): The author does not draw any conclusion about what a lower than normal amount of algae would do to fish in the pond. The flaw cannot be about a conclusion that the author does not make.
Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
The local resident in this stimulus has noticed that the few times he has seen many dead fish wash ashore in the summer, the pond has also had an abnormally large amount of algae. From this fact, the resident concludes that the algae must be harmful to the small fish. This is a causal argument, and can be diagrammed as follows:
- Cause
Effect
Overabundance of algae 
Harm to small fish
The resident supports the causal argument only by his observations of a correlation between the existence of the abnormal amount algae and the abnormal number of dead fish. The author does not provide additional information leading that would support the causal relationship in the conclusion. In a causal relationship, the cause must occur before the effect, and the cause must directly lead to the effect. The author’s argument is flawed because the author does not eliminate an alternate cause for the harm to the fish, nor does he or she eliminate a common cause for both occurrences. Finally, there is the possibility that the dead fish are somehow causing the overabundance of algae in the pond. The author fails to address any of the above alternate explanations for the correlation.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus provides no information about large fish. The pond may only contain small fish, or perhaps the author did not care about the death of larger fish. In either case, the author does not say that the small fish are unusually susceptible to harm from algae. Therefore, this cannot be the correct flaw.
Answer choice (B): The resident’s argument is only focused on the impact of algae in this pond. The fact that small fish may fare better in a larger body of water is not relevant to the causal conclusion drawn about the way the algae harms fish in the resident’s pond.
Answer choice (C): As with answer choice (A), this answer choice incorrectly applies the causal relationship to large fish. The resident’s argument is limited to small fish in the local pond. Answer choices, like this, that address a broader conclusion are incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As explained above, the author only supports that the death of small fish and the overabundance of algae tend to occur at the same time. The resident does not adequately address the possibility that there might be a common cause to both events that cause them to occur together, but where the algae do not directly cause the fish death.
Answer choice (E): The author does not draw any conclusion about what a lower than normal amount of algae would do to fish in the pond. The flaw cannot be about a conclusion that the author does not make.
