Self-study
Conclusion Taking advanced mathematics courses should increase a student's grade point average, for, as numerous studies have shown, Support students who have taken one or more advanced mathematics courses are far more likely to have high grade point averages than students who have not taken such courses.
Method of Reasoning
This argument states that taking advanced mathematics should cause students’ grade point averages to increase, because there is a correlation between students who have taken advanced mathematics courses and students with high grade point averages.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation, wherein the author assumes that because two things are associated with each other, one must cause (or, in this case, should cause) the other. This author assumes that taking advanced math should lead to a high GPA, but maybe it’s the reverse—students with high GPAs are more likely to take a hard math class because their GPAs can stand to take a hit! Or there could be a separate, third cause of both traits—maybe highly motivated students both tend to have high GPAs and tend to decide to challenge themselves with hard math classes!
22.
The flawed pattern of reasoning ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Fur color is ██ █████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████
Wrong flaw. This argument isn’t perfectly valid—it’s theoretically possible that some environmental factor causes cats to have kittens of the same color. But (A) is much stronger than the stimulus, because it’s not possible that the reverse causation is true. Having kittens of a color can’t cause a cat to have been born that same color!
b
Water can cause █████████████ █████ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████ █████████████
Wrong flaw. There’s no evidence to suggest that water is causing intoxication—it’s probably the alcohol it’s mixed with! But there’s no correlation established in (B) the way there is in the stimulus: the argument doesn’t say that people tend to be drunk whenever they drink water, the way people who take advanced math tend to have high GPAs. It just says that some drinks that have water in them cause intoxication.
c
Eating a diet ██████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████
No flaw. The conclusion of this argument is not strongly worded—it just says that eating a fatty and carb-heavy diet may cause weight gain. The correlation between being overweight and eating such diets is enough to establish that such a causation is possible, and that’s all the conclusion in (C) claims. The stimulus, however, concludes that a specific causation is certain.
d
Buying running shoes ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ █ ██████ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████
This argument states that buying running shoes should cause a person’s exercise frequency to increase, because there is a correlation between people who buy two or more pairs of running shoes per year and people who tend to exercise more often. This is the same cookie-cutter correlation vs. causation flaw: neither (D) nor the stimulus rule out the possibility that the reverse causation is true, or that there’s a third, separate cause of both factors.
e
Reading to children ██ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███
Wrong flaw. This argument isn’t perfectly valid—it’s theoretically possible that some third factor causes children to both not be read to and to be less likely to develop an interest in reading later. But (E) is much stronger than the stimulus, because it’s not possible that the reverse causation is true. Not having an interest in reading later in life can’t cause you to not be read to as a child!