#14 - Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that

[Brazilfagan]

Hello, I do not understand how C is the correct answer since the answer choice says "the first thing was caused by the second thing. Wouldn't the first thing be owning a laptop and the second thing be a higher salary?

[Robert Carroll]

B,

Answer choice (C) says that it concludes one thing (let's call this Q) was caused by another (call this Z), so:

The argument apparently claims that Z causes Q. If Q was caused by Z, this matching makes sense.

Let's continue:

...although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing's (that's Q, as it was the first thing listed in this answer choice) having caused the second (that's Z then).

So this is saying that the evidence is consistent with Q causing Z.

This, then, is describing a reverse cause and effect flaw.

If the argument claims that Z causes Q, then we need to look at what the argument claims to identify Z and Q with the phenomena in the argument. The argument concludes that owing a laptop led to a higher-paying job, so the argument says:

owning a laptop causes a higher-paying job

And Z is "owning a laptop" while Q is "having a higher-paying job".

Because the answer choice was phrased in the passive voice, the "first thing" listed is actually the claimed effect in the argument, not the cause. You just have to be careful matching the two things with their orders in the answer choice.

Robert Carroll

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

B,

Answer choice (C) says that it concludes one thing (let's call this Q) was caused by another (call this Z), so:

The argument apparently claims that Z causes Q. If Q was caused by Z, this matching makes sense.

Let's continue:

...although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing's (that's Q, as it was the first thing listed in this answer choice) having caused the second (that's Z then).

So this is saying that the evidence is consistent with Q causing Z.

This, then, is describing a reverse cause and effect flaw.

If the argument claims that Z causes Q, then we need to look at what the argument claims to identify Z and Q with the phenomena in the argument. The argument concludes that owing a laptop led to a higher-paying job, so the argument says:

owning a laptop causes a higher-paying job

And Z is "owning a laptop" while Q is "having a higher-paying job".

Because the answer choice was phrased in the passive voice, the "first thing" listed is actually the claimed effect in the argument, not the cause. You just have to be careful matching the two things with their orders in the answer choice.

Robert Carroll

Hello Robert - I am having difficulty understanding your explanation. Are you able to explain how it's not circular reasoning flaw? Which I understood it to be as I selected B.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer B is incorrect for at least two reasons, saiffshaikhh. First, it's not true: the author did not claim anywhere earlier in the argument that the relationship was causal. The earlier claim was that there was a correlation, and the conclusion was that the relationship was causal. That's an entirely different claim, not a restatement of a prior claim, and it's a classic causal flaw. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

The second reason is that a true circular argument offers no evidence other than just a restatement of the premise as the conclusion. If you see evidence - any attempt to prove the claim, including by using irrelevant facts or senseless appeals to emotion or to popular opinion, or any other unconvincing evidence - it's not a circular argument. Here, the author appealed to evidence: the findings of the economist of a correlation between owning a laptop and making more money. So, since there is evidence being offered that is not just saying the same thing that the conclusion said, it's not a circular argument.

To illustrate:

I know that I am going to get promoted, because there is no way that I will not get a promotion. That's circular, because there is no evidence.

I know that I am going to get promoted, because my psychic told me that there is no way that I will not get a promotion. That's not circular, because I gave evidence: my psychic said so. It's still not a very convincing argument, because my psychic could be a fraud or a liar, but it's not a circular argument because I did more than just repeat myself.

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

Answer B is incorrect for at least two reasons, saiffshaikhh. First, it's not true: the author did not claim anywhere earlier in the argument that the relationship was causal. The earlier claim was that there was a correlation, and the conclusion was that the relationship was causal. That's an entirely different claim, not a restatement of a prior claim, and it's a classic causal flaw. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

The second reason is that a true circular argument offers no evidence other than just a restatement of the premise as the conclusion. If you see evidence - any attempt to prove the claim, including by using irrelevant facts or senseless appeals to emotion or to popular opinion, or any other unconvincing evidence - it's not a circular argument. Here, the author appealed to evidence: the findings of the economist of a correlation between owning a laptop and making more money. So, since there is evidence being offered that is not just saying the same thing that the conclusion said, it's not a circular argument.

To illustrate:

I know that I am going to get promoted, because there is no way that I will not get a promotion. That's circular, because there is no evidence.

I know that I am going to get promoted, because my psychic told me that there is no way that I will not get a promotion. That's not circular, because I gave evidence: my psychic said so. It's still not a very convincing argument, because my psychic could be a fraud or a liar, but it's not a circular argument because I did more than just repeat myself.

Thank you for the detailed explanation!