#8 - The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)

Your task in this Flaw question is to select the answer choice that best describes the flawed method
of argumentation in the stimulus. The argument proceeds:

Premise: the proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition
labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people
who do not read nutrition labels

Conclusion: thus, reading nutrition labels on food products promotes healthful dietary
behavior

The causal conclusion in this stimulus, that reading the labels promotes healthful dietary behavior, is
supported by just one premise, an inverse correlation between reading the labels and the proportion
of fat calories in a person’s diet. The LSAT often provides poor causal arguments, and this is no
exception. Your prephrase for the correct answer is that the author has inferred from the existence
of this inverse correlation that a causal relationship must exist between the two, and in a specific
direction.

The incorrect answers will not properly describe the flawed method of reasoning in the stimulus.
Instead, these answers will describe something that did not occur in the stimulus, or they may
describe something that occurred in the stimulus but was not a logical flaw.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. While the adverb “illicitly” may seem a bit
dramatic, this choice is correct because it accurately describes the flaw of inferring causation from a
mere correlation.

Answer choice (B): The conclusion did not make an unsupported generalization regarding a group.

Answer choice (C): This choice describes a flaw in conditional reasoning, which was not present in
the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): This describes a false dilemma, which did not appear in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): This choice describes flawed causal reasoning, but the not specific flaw that
occurred in the stimulus. In this choice, the flaw would be to infer from observing some state of
affairs what caused that state of affairs to occur, without the proper context to reach that conclusion.

[cardinal2017]

Hi,

I do see that the conclusion has a causation flaw problem.

Having said that, I chose (C) because I was so into finding gaps between the premise and conclusion, or assumption, due to my recent study focus on assumption.

Look at the following to see how I came to (C) for an answer:

P: Reading nutrition labels-->Much lower fat diet (proportionally) compared to not reading labels

C: Reading labels promotes Healthful dietary behavior.

I paid more attention to the link between lower fat diet and healthful dietary behavior since I thought the author didn't establish that lower fat diet necessarily leads to healthful dietary behavior.

It might be true that even if you eat little fat, you might have unhealthful diets if you consume an excess of sugar and sodium.

Based on this line of reasoning, I was confused that the reasoning in question treated necessary condition (lower fat diet) as sufficient condition for healthful diet.

Cheers

[Kristina Moen]

Hi cardinal,

You were correct to identify a flaw in causal reasoning. The word "promotes" indicates causation.

Answer choice (C) describes a flaw of conditional reasoning (see words "necessary" and "sufficient"). That flaw would look something like this: Everyone who reads labels is healthy. John is a healthy person, so he must read labels.

The stimulus does not make a conditional reasoning flaw. It does not use conditional reasoning at all. It never says that one thing is necessary for another, only that one thing (reading labels) causes another thing (healthful behavior).

Answer choice (A) describes a flaw of causal reasoning.

[lanereuden]

Would E be correct if it had said the opposite...to wit:
Draws a conclusion about the consequences of behavior solely on the basis of their intentions.

[Zach Foreman]

Lane,
No, there is no fixing it. The conclusion of the stimulus does not mention their intentions. Sure, we could try to infer that they were trying to lose weight or be healthier, but we don't know what their intentions were really. The conclusion would have to say something like "Clearly, people who read the label want to lose weight."
And we don't know anything about the consequences of their behavior. What do we know about the consequence of them reading labels? Well, it could be that as a consequence they eat less fat, but we don't know for sure. It could be that people who are concerned about their weight both exercise more than others and read labels more but it is the exercise that is helpful. And we don't know anything about the consequences of them eating less fat. It could be bad or good or insignificant.

[Mmjd12]

Can "illicitity refers a cause from a correlation" also be used to describe reverse casual relationship?

My prephrase flaw was the cause/effect relationship could be reversed: that reading labels promotes lower fat content in one's diet

[Adam Tyson]

I'll say yes and no, Mmjd12. On the one hand, since a reversal is a classic causal flaw, any answer that describes causal flaws generally is good. "Correlation does not prove causation" is just such a general answer.

On the other hand, no, because to describe a reversal is to say that there is or could be a causal relationship, but that it's not necessarily the causal relationship that the author proposed. While a reversal certainly makes sense here, answer A isn't really describing that particular causal flaw.

Ultimately, if you recognize that the problem is causal, selecting the one answer that describes a causal flaw is the safe bet!