Self-study
Newsletter for community-center volunteers: Support Retired persons who regularly volunteer their time to help others generally display fewer and milder effects of aging than their nonvolunteering contemporaries: Support in social resources, mental outlook, physical health, economic resources, and overall functioning, they are found to be substantially stronger than nonvolunteers. ████████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████
Summarize Argument
The newsletter concludes that volunteering can benefit one’s well-being. It supports this by noting that retired people who volunteer tend to show fewer signs of aging than retired people who don’t, and that volunteers are stronger socially, mentally, physically, and economically than non-volunteers.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the newsletter sees a positive correlation and then jumps to the conclusion that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, it overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed— maybe stronger people tend to volunteer more, not the other way around.
(2) Some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something that causes people to both be stronger and to volunteer.
7.
The inference drawn above is ███████████ ███████
a
the center has █ ███████████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████
This might be true; we don’t have enough information to know either way. But even if it is true, (A) doesn't describe the logical flaw in the newsletter’s argument. It’s based on that logical flaw that “the inference drawn above is unwarranted.”
b
it interprets "well-being" ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████████
This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the newsletter’s argument. Interpreting “well-being” in this way is entirely reasonable.
c
some of those ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ██ ██████████ █████ █████
This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the newsletter’s argument. Some of those who don’t volunteer might also be younger than some volunteers; it doesn’t matter to the argument, which only compares retired volunteers with their “nonvolunteering contemporaries.”
d
growing older might ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████
This might be true, but it doesn't describe the flaw in the newsletter’s argument. The argument assumes that volunteering causes a stronger mental outlook. It doesn’t assume that growing older causes a change in mental outlook.
e
those with better ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████
This describes an alternative hypothesis that the author ignores. She assumes that volunteering causes increased well-being, without considering that instead, those with a higher well-being might be more likely or more able to volunteer.