#9 - Records from 1850 to 1900 show that in a certain

[Adam Tyson]

I see answer C as being incorrect for two reasons, cornflakes. First and foremost, it ignores the causal element, which is an essential part of the argument's method of reasoning. That kills this answer completely. Second, to make matters worse, it ignores the shift in terms - successful crops last year and food availability during recent pregnancy are not synonymous, and in the modern world may have very little to do with each other, and birth weight is only one component of newborn health.

The primary problem with the answer, though, is that the argument is causal, and answer C is not. To describe the method of reasoning of a causal argument you absolutely must address that causal aspect.

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

Hello,

Does correct answer choice A somehow encapsulate Flaw #2 (switching of terms which are not synonymous in meaning)? It is clear that choice A does address Flaw #1 regarding correlation not being sufficient to conclude causation.

Thanks,

Jonathan

[Adam Tyson]

It sure does, Jonathan! The reference to "two other" things in answer A does that. But for our purposes in a Method of Reasoning question, you really don't need to focus on why or how the argument is flawed. You just have to describe what they did, whether it was flawed or valid.