#7 - DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus provides a very basic example of flawed causal reasoning. Just because one thing happens and another thing follows does not automatically mean that the first caused the second. DataCom filed many patents last year and was financially successful, but based upon the information given we do not know that there was not some alternative cause for the company's financial success.

Answer Choice (A) The problem with this stimulus is not one of circular reasoning, and this answer choice can therefore be quickly eliminated.

Answer Choice (B) The issue here is not one of confusion between financial success and technological innovativeness. The problem is that — given the information that the company was technologically innovative and financially successful — a causal relationship between the two is automatically assumed.

Answer Choice (C) The flaw in the reasoning here has nothing to do with a comparison of how DataCom's competitors have done from one year to another. DataCom's competitors are mentioned merely to show that in this year, DataCom filed for more patents and was more financially successful.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice explains the first of the five flaws we look for in causal relationships — that there is an alternative explanation for the occurrence of the effect. We have no idea why DataCom was more successful than its competitors. While it may have been the numerous patents it filed, it could also be better marketing, reputation, etc.

Answer Choice (E) By identifying that the flawed reasoning in the stimulus is causal, this answer choice should be quickly dismissed.

[rpark8214]

HI,

If (A) was the correct answer, what would circular reasoning in this stimulus look like?

Also, I was originally hesitant to select answer choice (D) because of the word "likely" in the conclusion. By the author stating that it is "therefore likely," does the author not provide the possibility for other differences for DataCom's financial success? The author is not fully committed to the position that patents were the sole reason for DataCom's success.

Thanks in advance for your help/input!

[Alex Bodaken]

rpark8214,

Thanks for the question! Circular reasoning can be hard to give examples of (which, incidentally, is why it is rarely [but not never!] the correct answer choice), but in this case it would be something like: "If DataCom filed more patents than its competitors, then its competitors wouldn't have filed as many patents as DataCom." This is a sentence in which the premise and conclusion are just restatements of one another disguised as conditional reasoning.

The "therefore likely" in the stimulus does lessen the certainty with which the author is claiming her conclusion to be true; even so, we are looking for an answer choice that simply makes the given explanation less likely. In other words, the correct answer choice doesn't have to make the author's explanation impossible, it just has to lessen its likelihood. The author has said that a given explanation is likely, but we have no reason to believe that to be the case given the infinite other explanations for the stated events; this is basically what is said in answer choice (D), making it the correct answer.

Hope this helps!
Alex

[Bruin96]

What is the casual relationship within the stimulus? I got this answer correct because I was able to determine what the flaw was or the error in the reasoning. However, would the causal relationship be ..

Cause: Filled more patents
Effect:Higher chance of Financial Success

[James Finch]

Hi Bruin,

Exactly, this is a classic causal reasoning stimulus where we're given an effect and as well as a possible cause, and the two seem to correlate (here they happen during the same time period). From this correlation, the stimulus's conclusion then assumes likely causation. And that's the flaw, assuming causation based only on correlation. The correct answer choice, (D), points out that there are still possible alternate causes. But any of the classic ways to weaken a causal argument would be correct here, including reverse causation; it's possible that greater financial success could lead to filing more patents.

Hope this helps!