Self-study
Support The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that eating less fat will help reduce cancer risk. He supports this by pointing to a correlation between cancer rates and fat intake: countries with higher cancer rates also have higher average fat intake.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author hypothesizes that higher fat intake is what’s causing the higher cancer rates. This means he assumes that the relationship isn’t the reverse (i.e., the higher cancer rates aren’t somehow causing higher fat intake), and also that there isn’t some hidden, alternative cause that’s actually responsible for the difference in cancer rates between different countries.
12.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████
a
The differences in ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██████
In order for this to weaken the argument, traditional diets would need to provide an alternative explanation for the difference in cancer rates between different countries. However, the possible effect of any given traditional diet on cancer rates is entirely unclear.
Failed alternate explanation
Failed alternate explanation
Weaken Qs: Answers that try to introduce an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to explain a different phenomenon.
Strengthen Qs: Answers that try to eliminate an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to eliminate an explanation for a different phenomenon.
b
The countries with █ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████
In order for this to weaken the argument, the wealth of a country would need to provide an alternative explanation for the increased cancer rates in high-fat counties. However, the connection between increased national wealth and increased cancer likelihood is entirely unclear.
Failed alternate explanation
Failed alternate explanation
Weaken Qs: Answers that try to introduce an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to explain a different phenomenon.
Strengthen Qs: Answers that try to eliminate an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to eliminate an explanation for a different phenomenon.
c
Cancer is a █████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ █ ███ ███████ ███ ███████
The stimulus tells us that cancer nevertheless occurs more commonly in countries with higher average fat intake. (C) fails to address any reason for that difference in cancer rates, and so fails to weaken the conclusion that the difference is due to fat intake.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
d
The countries with ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ██████████
This provides an alternative cause for the difference in cancer rates between different countries: it’s not fat intake that’s responsible, but rather exposure to pollution.
Alternate explanation
Alternate explanation
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
e
An individual resident ██ █ ███████ █████ ██████████ ███ █ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █ ████ ████ █ ███ ███ ███████
The fact remains that, in general, high average fat intake correlates with high cancer rates. The possibility that someone’s fat intake might deviate from the average has no effect on the argument.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.