- Posts: 3
- Joined: Feb 09, 2022
- Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:56 pm
#94061
Hi,
Please help me understand why my thought process was wrong on this.
The stimulus says concludes that "antitheft devices do not protect cars against thieves" because of statistics that show that "cars with alarms or other antitheft devices are more likely to be stolen or broken into." I determined that the flaw in this reasoning could be that they failed to recognize that the characteristic in question (having an alarm or antitheft device) is likely to come with something else that actually leads to the conclusion. For example, carjackings and robberies involving cars that are equipped with alarms and antitheft devices are probably more likely to be reported because they have devices that signal that an incident occurred.
So my idea was to look for an answer where the reasoning is wrong because there was a failure to consider that the characteristic in question might be associated with something else that could lead to the conclusion. I chose (D) "Since youngsters who read voraciously are more likely to have defective vision than youngsters who do not read very much, it follows that children who do not like to read usually have perfect vision." because I thought that young people who read voraciously could be more prone to poor vision because a lot of reading can be straining on the eyes, and such straining of the eyes is what can cause poor vision, not the fact that they are avid readers.
So in both the stimulus and choice (D), something else could've contributed to the effect and therefore we should not come to a conclusion about the first characteristic mentioned (having an antitheft device (stim) or reading a lot (stim)).
Please help me understand why my thought process was wrong on this.
The stimulus says concludes that "antitheft devices do not protect cars against thieves" because of statistics that show that "cars with alarms or other antitheft devices are more likely to be stolen or broken into." I determined that the flaw in this reasoning could be that they failed to recognize that the characteristic in question (having an alarm or antitheft device) is likely to come with something else that actually leads to the conclusion. For example, carjackings and robberies involving cars that are equipped with alarms and antitheft devices are probably more likely to be reported because they have devices that signal that an incident occurred.
So my idea was to look for an answer where the reasoning is wrong because there was a failure to consider that the characteristic in question might be associated with something else that could lead to the conclusion. I chose (D) "Since youngsters who read voraciously are more likely to have defective vision than youngsters who do not read very much, it follows that children who do not like to read usually have perfect vision." because I thought that young people who read voraciously could be more prone to poor vision because a lot of reading can be straining on the eyes, and such straining of the eyes is what can cause poor vision, not the fact that they are avid readers.
So in both the stimulus and choice (D), something else could've contributed to the effect and therefore we should not come to a conclusion about the first characteristic mentioned (having an antitheft device (stim) or reading a lot (stim)).
