Self-study
Game show host: Conclusion Humans are no better than apes at investing, that is, they do not attain a better return on their investments than apes do. ██ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ████ █████
Summarize Argument
The game show host concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing. She supports this with an experiment in which five stock analysts and one chimpanzee were each given $1,350 to invest. After one month, the chimpanzee increased its net worth by $210, while the top analyst increased by only $140.
Identify and Describe Flaw
There are many flaws with the game show host’s argument and experiment. First is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. She makes a generalization about all people based on a study of five, and about all apes based on a study of one chimpanzee. She also draws a conclusion about investing in general based on one small experiment that involved only short-term investing; she never considers the analysts’ and chimpanzee’s potential long-term results.
20.
Each of the following describes █ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███████
a
A conclusion is █████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The host broadly concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing based on an experiment involving only one chimpanzee. Would other chimpanzees have had similar success? What about other kinds of apes?
b
No evidence is ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ██████████
This is true, but it isn’t a flaw. The host concludes that humans are no better at investing than apes, based on an experiment where an ape made more money investing than humans did. It doesn’t matter if the ape understood investing, just that it performed better than the humans.
c
A broad conclusion ██ █████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ███████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The host broadly concludes that humans in general are no better than apes at investing based on an experiment involving only five humans.
d
Too general a ██████████ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████
This is yet another example of the host’s overgeneralization. She draws a general conclusion about all investing based on one experiment that only involved short-term investing.
e
No evidence is ██████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
This is another one of the host’s flaws. She draws a conclusion about investing based on a very short (one month) experiment. She overlooks the fact that the results could be different after multiple months or years, especially since investing is often a long-term process.