Self-study
Doctors in Britain have long suspected that patients who wear tinted eyeglasses are abnormally prone to depression and hypochondria. █████████████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ████████ █████████ ████ █ █████████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████████████
Causation And Overgeneralization
Weaken EXCEPT stimuli tend to feature a ton of flaws because the testwriters need room for 4 wrong answers that each make a legitimate attack on the argument. You should therefore read the stimulus looking to spot as many issues as you can, then roll into the answer choices expecting them to reveal some new angles of attack you didn’t notice at first. In this question, it turns out the main themes that govern the answer choices are causation and overgeneralization:
Premise: [Sunglass-wearers in British hospitals who were admitted for physical complaints like heart pain] are more likely to be depressed / hypochondriacal.
________
Conclusion: Sunglass-wearing across time and space is always caused by depression / hypochondria.
Spotting the correlation =/= causation angle of attack is straightforward. This argument fits the classic phenomenon hypothesis pattern, drawing a specific causal conclusion from data that’s merely correlative.
But we can also attack the stimulus from an overgeneralization perspective – it takes data that shows a correlation within a ridiculously narrow scope (sunglass-wearers in British hospitals who were admitted for physical complaints like heart pain) and makes an absurdly strong categorical claim about all the sunglass-wearers in the universe.
23.
Each of the following, if █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████
a
Some people wear ██████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ███████ █ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ███
(A) fits the phenomenon hypothesis mold – it weakens the argument’s causal conclusion by providing an alternate cause for sunglass-wearing.
b
Even a depressed ██ ███████████████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ███████████ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████████
The stimulus gives us no reason to believe the doctors didn’t perform the usual tests.
The main narrative through which (B) resonates is that in the real world doctors do often dismiss valid health concerns brought to them by people they see as depressed or hypochondriacal. From that angle, (B) asks “what if the people in these studies actually had real health problems?”
You can spend a great deal of time puzzling out the implications that would have on the data, but all that speculation is cut short because, again, we have no reason to believe the doctors conducting the study neglected to perform the usual tests.
c
The confirmatory tests ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████
(C) attacks the argument’s overly general conclusion, pointing out that a correlation observed in gross foggy British hospitals might not persist across different climates.
d
Fashions with respect ██ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████
(D) gives a bit of alternate cause energy and a bit of overgeneralization energy. It points out that a correlation observed in gross foggy British hospitals might not persist in other areas of the world, where people might wear sunglasses for fashion reasons instead of depression reasons.
e
At the hospitals █████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████████
(E) attacks the argument’s overly general conclusion (about how all sunglass-wearers across time and space are more likely to be depressed / hypochondriacal) by providing additional correlative evidence that undermines the claim. (“Check out these sunglass-wearers – they’re fine.”)