- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#37376
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The author suspects that NoSmoke does not reduce smokers’ cravings, contrary to what the
manufacturers of NoSmoke may claim. As evidence, she notes that NoSmoke contains only two
ingredients, one of which has been found not to reduce such cravings. If similar results were found
for the second ingredient, the author concludes, we can be certain that NoSmoke does not reduce
smokers’ cravings.
This argument is flawed because the author’s conclusion is based on a questionable premise—
namely, that the ingredients in NoSmoke would work independently to produce the desired effect.
However, what if they only work in conjunction with one another? The two studies would only be
testing the effect of each ingredient independently. Even if neither of them were able to reduce the
smokers’ cravings individually, it is still possible that the two would work together to produce the
desired effect. This is an example of an Error of Composition.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice describes an Error of
Composition. Even if the studies establish that each ingredient fails to produce the desired effect,
this does not preclude the possibility that the two ingredients, when taken together, do produce that
effect.
Answer Choice (B): While the author does draw a causal conclusion, namely, that NoSmoke causes
no decrease in cravings for cigarettes, her conclusion is not based on a mere correlation. The studies
described would suggest that the effect was never produced in the presence of either ingredient.
This is not a correlation. Since one portion of this answer choice is an inaccurate description of the
argument, it is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C): There is no reason to suspect that the studies are based on an unrepresentative
sample. NoSmoke contains only two ingredients. If the author only considered the effects of one
ingredient, then this answer choice would be more attractive. However, the author reaches her
conclusion only after considering the hypothetical results of a second study, in which the second
ingredient produces similar results.
Answer Choice (D): This is a Shell Game answer. The author never suggested that NoSmoke is
unable to help people quit smoking: the conclusion has a much narrower focus on whether or not
NoSmoke reduces cravings for cigarettes. Even if NoSmoke were found to help people quit smoking
in some other way, the author’s conclusion would still be valid.
Answer Choice (E): Although the manufactures of NoSmoke may indeed be biased in favor of their
product, the author never discussed their motivations for claiming that their product is effective. This
answer choice describes a Source argument, which is not present in the stimulus.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The author suspects that NoSmoke does not reduce smokers’ cravings, contrary to what the
manufacturers of NoSmoke may claim. As evidence, she notes that NoSmoke contains only two
ingredients, one of which has been found not to reduce such cravings. If similar results were found
for the second ingredient, the author concludes, we can be certain that NoSmoke does not reduce
smokers’ cravings.
This argument is flawed because the author’s conclusion is based on a questionable premise—
namely, that the ingredients in NoSmoke would work independently to produce the desired effect.
However, what if they only work in conjunction with one another? The two studies would only be
testing the effect of each ingredient independently. Even if neither of them were able to reduce the
smokers’ cravings individually, it is still possible that the two would work together to produce the
desired effect. This is an example of an Error of Composition.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice describes an Error of
Composition. Even if the studies establish that each ingredient fails to produce the desired effect,
this does not preclude the possibility that the two ingredients, when taken together, do produce that
effect.
Answer Choice (B): While the author does draw a causal conclusion, namely, that NoSmoke causes
no decrease in cravings for cigarettes, her conclusion is not based on a mere correlation. The studies
described would suggest that the effect was never produced in the presence of either ingredient.
This is not a correlation. Since one portion of this answer choice is an inaccurate description of the
argument, it is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C): There is no reason to suspect that the studies are based on an unrepresentative
sample. NoSmoke contains only two ingredients. If the author only considered the effects of one
ingredient, then this answer choice would be more attractive. However, the author reaches her
conclusion only after considering the hypothetical results of a second study, in which the second
ingredient produces similar results.
Answer Choice (D): This is a Shell Game answer. The author never suggested that NoSmoke is
unable to help people quit smoking: the conclusion has a much narrower focus on whether or not
NoSmoke reduces cravings for cigarettes. Even if NoSmoke were found to help people quit smoking
in some other way, the author’s conclusion would still be valid.
Answer Choice (E): Although the manufactures of NoSmoke may indeed be biased in favor of their
product, the author never discussed their motivations for claiming that their product is effective. This
answer choice describes a Source argument, which is not present in the stimulus.
