- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:00 am
#23141
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus presents certain observations. First, that short children have difficulty reaching high shelves, and tend to become short adults. Second, tall children can reach high shelves easily, and tend to become tall adults. It seems that the ability to reach high shelves during childhood is correlated with height during adulthood. From this correlation, the stimulus concludes that if we somehow improve short childrens' ability to reach high shelves, then perhaps they will become tall adults. Implicit in this reasoning is that shortness in adulthood is somehow caused by the inability to reach high shelves during childhood. Hence, the argument reasons, if we remove the cause (the difficulty in reaching high shelves during childhood), then we can remove the effect (shortness in adulthood). The problem with this reasoning is that there is no indication that the correlation between difficulty in reaching high shelves during childhood and adult shortness reflects any sort of causal relationship. A more plausible explanation is that shortness during childhood is common to both observed effects—difficulty in reaching shelves during childhood, and shortness as an adult.
Answer choice (A) The argument does not make an error in generalization. It does not reason that since a smaller subset of a larger group has a certain characteristic, then that larger group also has that characteristic.
Answer choice (B) The argument is not circular. There is a very definite logic behind the argument that goes beyond simply restating its premises as its conclusion, since it clearly tries to make a causal connection. Unfortunately, the argument fails to do so, because the causal connection is unwarranted.
Answer choice (C) The argument does not point to an exceptional case, nor does it seek to refute a generalization, so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus makes this very mistake—it erroneously infers from the correlation between difficulty in reaching high shelves during childhood and subsequent adult shortness, that the two are causally related. There is no indication, however, that the two are in fact causally related.
Answer choice (E) The argument does not point out any lack of evidence for any proposition. Neither does it infer anywhere that this absence of evidence is evidence of absence for a certain proposition.
Flaw in the reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus presents certain observations. First, that short children have difficulty reaching high shelves, and tend to become short adults. Second, tall children can reach high shelves easily, and tend to become tall adults. It seems that the ability to reach high shelves during childhood is correlated with height during adulthood. From this correlation, the stimulus concludes that if we somehow improve short childrens' ability to reach high shelves, then perhaps they will become tall adults. Implicit in this reasoning is that shortness in adulthood is somehow caused by the inability to reach high shelves during childhood. Hence, the argument reasons, if we remove the cause (the difficulty in reaching high shelves during childhood), then we can remove the effect (shortness in adulthood). The problem with this reasoning is that there is no indication that the correlation between difficulty in reaching high shelves during childhood and adult shortness reflects any sort of causal relationship. A more plausible explanation is that shortness during childhood is common to both observed effects—difficulty in reaching shelves during childhood, and shortness as an adult.
Answer choice (A) The argument does not make an error in generalization. It does not reason that since a smaller subset of a larger group has a certain characteristic, then that larger group also has that characteristic.
Answer choice (B) The argument is not circular. There is a very definite logic behind the argument that goes beyond simply restating its premises as its conclusion, since it clearly tries to make a causal connection. Unfortunately, the argument fails to do so, because the causal connection is unwarranted.
Answer choice (C) The argument does not point to an exceptional case, nor does it seek to refute a generalization, so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus makes this very mistake—it erroneously infers from the correlation between difficulty in reaching high shelves during childhood and subsequent adult shortness, that the two are causally related. There is no indication, however, that the two are in fact causally related.
Answer choice (E) The argument does not point out any lack of evidence for any proposition. Neither does it infer anywhere that this absence of evidence is evidence of absence for a certain proposition.