Self-study
Advocate: Support A study of people who had recently recovered from colds found that people who took cold medicine for their colds reported more severe symptoms than those people who did not take cold medicine. ██████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████████████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The advocate argues that taking cold medicine is counterproductive. She supports this claim by citing a study wherein people who took cold medicine reported more severe symptoms than did those who didn’t take cold medicine.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the advocate sees a correlation and concludes that one thing caused the other without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, she overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people with more severe symptoms are more likely to take cold medicine!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—for example, maybe in parts of the world where colds tend to be more severe, cold medicine also happens to be more widely available.
17.
The reasoning in the advocate's ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
treats something as ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ████
The advocate’s premise is a study, not a general belief. Furthermore, we have no reason to think that most people believe her conclusion or her premise to be true.
b
treats some people ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████████
The advocate doesn’t arbitrarily treat anyone as an expert. Rather, she cites the results of a study wherein people reported on their own symptoms—a subject in which people do have some expertise!
c
takes something to ██ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ████ █████
The advocate’s conclusion is extremely general; she does not mention any specific cases.
d
rests on a █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███████
The advocate’s argument doesn’t mistake sufficiency for necessity. She doesn’t claim in either the premise or the conclusion that cold medicine is sufficient or necessary to cause severe cold symptoms.
e
confuses what is ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing correlation and causation. The advocate’s argument forgets that the causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people with more severe symptoms are more likely to take cold medicine!