Self-study
Some people believe that good health is due to luck. ████████ ███████ ████ ████ █████████ ████████ █ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████████ ████████
Studies Show a Correlation. The Author Sees a Cause.
The author rejects the view that good health is due to luck. Instead, the author concludes that good health is largely the result of making informed lifestyle choices. And the evidence? Studies from many countries showing a strong correlation between good health and high educational levels.
There are two leaps worth noticing. First, the author treats a correlation between education and health as evidence that one causes the other. But a correlation just means two things tend to show up together. It doesn't tell us which one, if either, is responsible for the other.
Second, the author assumes a specific mechanism: education leads to informed lifestyle choices, which lead to good health. But the studies don't mention lifestyle choices at all. They just show that education and health on average go together. The author's argument has at least these two gaps: jumping from correlation to causation, and jumping from education to "informed choices."
What Else Could Explain the Correlation?
Since the core flaw is treating correlation as causation, we should think about what else could explain the correlation between education and health. Two alternatives stand out:
Third factor: Something else, like wealth or genetics, could independently produce both high education and good health. Wealthy families can afford better schools and better healthcare. If that's the case, education and health would be correlated even though neither one causes the other.
Reverse causation: Maybe good health causes high education, not the other way around. People who are healthier might find it easier to stay in school, concentrate in class, and pursue higher education. The causal arrow could point in the opposite direction from what the author assumes.
We don't need to know which alternative is actually true. We just need to recognize that the author hasn't ruled them out, and that's why the argument is flawed.
Analysis by Kevin_Lin
20.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████
b
overlooks the possibility ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████████
c
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
d
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██████
e
does not acknowledge ████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ██████