#5 - Scholar: Recently, some religions have updated the

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[sbhimani]

Why is (D) wrong? Is it because the scholar never said that modernization is the ONLY way?

[James Finch]

Hi SB,

The conclusion of the stimulus is that modernization of religion leads to more adherents for that religion. How does it come to this conclusion? It assumes that the cause of some religions that recently modernized is the modernization, and not something else. This is a flaw because logically it's necessary to explain why and how causation works, and not simply assume it is such.

Answer choice (C) reflects this issue of presumption of causation without evidence, making it the correct answer choice. (D), on the other hand, reflects a conditional relationship that isn't given in the stimulus, which only assumes that modernization is one way to increase attendance, not necessarily the only way.

Hope this helps!

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

I understand why C is correct, but grappled with D for a bit. I thought that the assumption implicit in any causal conclusion is that the stated cause (modernization) is the only cause of that stated effect (increased number of worshippers). By virtue of the fact that the author asserts that modernization causes the increased number of worshippers, then, it seems that the author neglects the sundry other causes that could result in increased membership. D seemed attractive on these grounds.

C does certainly seem to capture the notion that the author has concluded causation solely from an observed relationship (modernization of the texts culminated in increased number of worshippers), but D gave me reason for pause. Thanks!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Kelly! Nice job understanding why (C) is a good answer choice. Assuming a causal relationship between two correlated things is inherently a logical flaw, and that is exactly what the scholar in the stimulus did here.

The flaw contained in answer choice (D), on the other hand, is not present in our argument. (D) is incorrect because the scholar never argues that modernization is the only way a religion can draw an increased attendance. If the conclusion read, "This shows that such modernization is the only way to result in an increased numbers of worshipers," (D) would be a good answer. In Flaw questions, we need to attack the error that is actually being used in the argument.

I thought that the assumption implicit in any causal conclusion is that the stated cause (modernization) is the only cause of that stated effect (increased number of worshippers).

Be careful here. It's true that the Scholar here is ignoring the other potential factors that may have led to increased attendance in order to focus on the modernization of texts/rituals as the sole cause of those recent increases. However, just because the Scholar in his argument has ignored potential other past causes to form his causal relationship, that doesn't mean that he is necessarily throwing away all other potential present/future causes of increased attendance.

Let's look at another example. A doctor says - "A recent study of 200 patients shows that a diet high in red meat consumption correlates with heart disease. So we know that eating red meat causes heart disease." We can NOT assume that the doctor is saying, "Nothing besides eating red meat can cause heart disease". While the doctor's argument is flawed because it ignores other potential contributing causes among those 200 patients in order to form a causal relationship, that does NOT mean that the doctor is forever tossing out all other potential causes of heart disease.

To sum up: when an argument creates a causal relationship (A causes B) between two correlated things, that is a Flaw. However, the creation of a causal relationship alone does not mean that the author is also saying that only A can ever cause B.

Hope that helps!