- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Jul 06, 2021
- Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:37 pm
#91992
Hello!
Well, I can do attempt to do so, but the question is twofold: can I do so creatively, AND will it require music? Can I serenade you with the correct understanding here?
So, without getting into answer choice E directly, and just looking at the argument, the flaw, which we would want to identify, really as a preface here in this flaw in the reasoning question, prior to getting to the answer choices. The flaw is based on a correlation and one of causation, which, when combined together, are used to make a statement of causality between the thing presumed to cause one of the correlated items and the other correlated item. In other words, you have the correlation of the theta waves with profound creativity, and then you have the statement of those waves being caused by listening to music. The idea is that, cutting across both of these, we can make the assertion that because A and B are correlated, and B and C are causally related, A must be causally related (caused by) to C.
And so that's the error. And, I'll just pause here and state that this error is indeed identified in answer choice D, wherein the strength of the causal relationship between the stated correlation of A and B, necessary to make a causal connection between A and C, is questioned.
In terms of answer choice E, this "no cause, no effect" interpretation of it would actually lend toward a strengthening element of the causal relationship. In other words, where we can demonstrate that an absence of the cause leads to an absence of the effect, then it makes it more probable that the presumed causal relationship is accurate.
Here, however, two things: One, this is not a weaken or strengthen question, so to attack the flaw in the reasoning, one would need to identify the actual flaw in the reasoning. Generally this would mean that the causal relationship itself has been insufficiently established and so we would be looking for evidence within the argument that demonstrates this insufficiency. Secondly, the "insufficient reasons" answer choice here would be one that you should be skeptical of, absent some definitive within the argument otherwise. In other words, the statement that the causal relationship is weak, would not be expected to be correct in a flaw in the reasoning question. You would have to indicate how the relationship stated is weak. And this would be, generally, for one of four ways: inference based on sequence, inference based on correlation (the correct answer here), failure to consider an alternative cause, and finally, failure to consider that the events may be reversed.
Notice that none of those situations implicate the idea of "no cause, no effect," which is typically confined, as aforementioned, to weaken/strengthen scenarios.
Let me know if you have further questions on this.
Well, I can do attempt to do so, but the question is twofold: can I do so creatively, AND will it require music? Can I serenade you with the correct understanding here?
So, without getting into answer choice E directly, and just looking at the argument, the flaw, which we would want to identify, really as a preface here in this flaw in the reasoning question, prior to getting to the answer choices. The flaw is based on a correlation and one of causation, which, when combined together, are used to make a statement of causality between the thing presumed to cause one of the correlated items and the other correlated item. In other words, you have the correlation of the theta waves with profound creativity, and then you have the statement of those waves being caused by listening to music. The idea is that, cutting across both of these, we can make the assertion that because A and B are correlated, and B and C are causally related, A must be causally related (caused by) to C.
And so that's the error. And, I'll just pause here and state that this error is indeed identified in answer choice D, wherein the strength of the causal relationship between the stated correlation of A and B, necessary to make a causal connection between A and C, is questioned.
In terms of answer choice E, this "no cause, no effect" interpretation of it would actually lend toward a strengthening element of the causal relationship. In other words, where we can demonstrate that an absence of the cause leads to an absence of the effect, then it makes it more probable that the presumed causal relationship is accurate.
Here, however, two things: One, this is not a weaken or strengthen question, so to attack the flaw in the reasoning, one would need to identify the actual flaw in the reasoning. Generally this would mean that the causal relationship itself has been insufficiently established and so we would be looking for evidence within the argument that demonstrates this insufficiency. Secondly, the "insufficient reasons" answer choice here would be one that you should be skeptical of, absent some definitive within the argument otherwise. In other words, the statement that the causal relationship is weak, would not be expected to be correct in a flaw in the reasoning question. You would have to indicate how the relationship stated is weak. And this would be, generally, for one of four ways: inference based on sequence, inference based on correlation (the correct answer here), failure to consider an alternative cause, and finally, failure to consider that the events may be reversed.
Notice that none of those situations implicate the idea of "no cause, no effect," which is typically confined, as aforementioned, to weaken/strengthen scenarios.
Let me know if you have further questions on this.
