Self-study
Lobbyist: Conclusion Those who claim that automobile exhaust emissions are a risk to public health are mistaken. ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████ ████████████ ██████ ████ █████████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument cites a positive correlation between car exhaust levels and public health to support its conclusion that car exhaust has no serious negative effect on health.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter example of a correlation-causation flaw. Just because two phenomena are positively correlated doesn't mean there is no negative causal relationship between them. It’s possible, even likely, that public health has improved in spite of car exhaust levels increasing. Public health has probably improved for a variety of other reasons that outweigh the negative impacts of auto emissions.
11.
The flaw in the lobbyist's █████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████
a
inspecting commercial airplanes ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████
Wrong flaw. This assumes that because a situation has improved, no further effort is needed to continue improving it. The stimulus attempts to negate a negative causal relationship with a positive correlation.
b
smoking cigarettes is ███ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████████████ █████████
Wrong flaw. To prove that smoking is not harmful, (B) cites exceptional examples of smokers who are not harmed by smoking. Rather than citing an exception to a general rule, the stimulus cites a correlation.
c
using a cell █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████
This commits a causation-correlation fallacy. (C) attempts to use a negative correlation (cell phone use has increased while accidents have decreased) to negate a causal relationship (using a cell phone while driving is not dangerous).
d
skydiving is not █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ █████
Wrong flaw. (D) cites a relative change (skydiving injuries have decreased) to make an absolute claim (skydiving is not dangerous). Skydiving may still be dangerous even if it’s not as risky as it used to be.
e
people with insurance ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██
(E) lacks a causal conclusion. The answer choice we’re looking for needs a premise about two things being correlated (which would be, what... robberies and insurance companies paying??) and a conclusion about how one thing doesn’t cause the other (that bit is completely absent).