Self-study
Support A survey of clerical workers' attitudes toward their work identified a group of secretaries with very positive attitudes. ████ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████ ███████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ █████████ █████████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ████████████ ████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███ ████████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that secretaries' positive attitudes toward work caused their excellent job performance. She supports this by pointing out that a survey identified secretaries with positive attitudes toward work, and these same secretaries were rated by their supervisors as excellent workers, much better than those with less positive attitudes.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author assumes that the secretaries' positive attitudes caused their excellent job performance, just because the same group had both traits. However, the author overlooks two key possibilities:
(1) Maybe the secretaries' excellent job performance caused their positive attitudes toward work.
(2) Maybe another factor, like being well-paid, caused both their positive attitudes and their excellent performance.
13.
Which one of the following ██████████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
It attempts to █████ █ ██████████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. But the author doesn't attempt to prove an overly broad generalization about all job performance. Instead, she uses an example of clerical workers to draw a conclusion about those same clerical workers.
b
It restates the █████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████████ █████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion simply restates a premise. The author’s premises and conclusion are distinct. One premise points out a correlation between positive attitudes and job performance, while her conclusion is about causation.
c
It does not ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ███████████
It doesn't matter whether the secretaries have positive attitudes toward other activities outside of work. The argument just addresses their positive attitudes toward work, claiming that this causes their excellent job performance.
d
It uses the ████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ███████
This is the flaw of equivocation, where an argument uses one term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake; she uses “positive attitudes” clearly and consistently throughout her argument, always referring to the secretaries’ positive attitudes toward their work.
e
It identifies the ████████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████ █████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████████████
The author argues that the positive attitudes caused excellent performance, without considering that excellent performance might actually have caused the positive attitudes. She sees a correlation between X and Y, then jumps to the conclusion that X caused Y.