#5 - Infants younger than six months who have normal hearing

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument observes that infants can distinguish between similar sounds in any language. Adults, however, can do so only in languages that they regularly use. Furthermore, the physiological capacity to hear begins to deteriorate after infancy. Thus, it seems there is a correlation between the capacity to hear and the ability to distinguish between similar sounds in any language. The argument, however, takes this one step further and concludes that this correlation must also be causation. Such a correlation may very well also be causation, but not necessarily so, as the argument erroneously suggests.

Answer choice (A) The arbitrary cutoff point described here is an artifact of the observation upon which the argument relies for its premise. The flaw with the argument lies not with the observation itself, but with the inferences drawn from it.

Answer choice (B) The argument, in relying on the premise that these differences in abilities exist, need not explain how these differences were measured. The flaw is not with the observation itself, but with the conclusion drawn from it.

Answer choice (C) Again, this may call into question the observations upon which the argument poses the puzzling effect. However, we are to evaluate the argument's conclusions, given these observations, not attack the observations themselves.

Answer choice (D) The argument does not make an error of group-to-individual generalization. The conclusion does not attribute any characteristic to any individual, but simply tries to advance a causal relationship.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument takes a factor (the capacity to hear) that might explain why infants can distinguish between similar sounds in any language while adults cannot, and concludes that such a factor is sufficient explanation for the observed effect. As explained above, while this correlation may also be causation, the argument goes too far in saying that it must be.

[reop6780]

Does the answer E imply "conditional reasoning error"? If so, how do i know the author tries to establish conditional reasoning in the stimuli instead of cause and effect for example?

I personally picked answer C believing that it undermines the premise of infants'
ability to distinguish aciustically similar sounds in any language in that C makes infants' ability even with young childrens' ability.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hyun,

That's actually talking about causal reasoning. The conclusion in the argument is causal ("must be the result of"), and the language in answer choice (E) that states, "a factor that might contribute to an explanation...of the difference" is also causal.

The use of the word "sufficient" in (E) is there to imply the idea of completeness, not that conditional reasoning is present. From that perspective, (E) says that the argument takes a factor that might provide a partial explanation and treats it as if it is the complete explanation.

With (C), you went too far in reading into that answer because its ok to ignore this fact; the argument doesn't rely on dissimilar sounds in different languages.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[reop6780]

Thank you for helping me out!

[andriana.caban]

Answer choice (D) The argument does not make an error of group-to-individual generalization. The conclusion does not attribute any characteristic to any individual, but simply tries to advance a causal relationship.

What would be an example of D being correct? Meaning, what would the stimulus look like if the author had made this type of flaw in their reasoning. Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Andriana,

Answer choice (D) is describing a division error. It's saying that just because something is true of a group of people, doesn't mean that it's true of each individual in a group.

An example of a division error would be something that said: My house is about half the size of a typical house in this neighborhood. Therefore my door is half the size of a typical door.

Just because the whole group (the house) has a characteristic, doesn't mean each part has that same characteristic.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[Bruin96]

So, I got this answer correct because I was able to understand what the flaw was/error in reasoning occurred. However, when reading the explanation above I realized that I had missed that this was a causal argument. Can someone please list what the cause and effect for this problem would be.

[James Finch]

Hi Bruin,

The effect is "the observed difference in the abilities of infants and young adults to distinguish between acoustically similar speech sounds" and the purported cause is the "physiological deterioration of hearing" as people age. The conclusion makes this clear by using the phrase "must be the result of."

Hope this clears things up!