#feedback

I think this is a weird video that makes the question much harder than necessary. Instead of trying to get us to differentiate between causal and non-causal logic (I'm not really even sure what that means in this case), why not just have us look at it exactly like any other question:

Does the answer make the argument stronger or weaker?

What would this look like? Well...

The conclusion of the argument is:

"Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted."

Okay, so I've got to look for an answer that points toward a warrant (reason) for the long-term training that the study overlooked, or that undermines the premise that the short term length is good enough for anyone.

Ok, so off to the answers:

(A) A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a

mental health professional.

If this is true, it makes the argument much stronger. Why pay for expensive long-term training when you'd do better by getting on with your life?

(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.

The explanation given in the video makes perfect sense. The conclusion just says "generally." So of course there can be exceptions.

Right answer (C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.

Oh! Great! If this is true, it gives a great reason to do long term training, even if it is more expensive. Those old premises don't seem to bring you to that conclusion very well anymore.

(D) The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual's anxiety.

If this is true, it makes the argument maybe a little stronger, certainly not weaker. Don't pay for expensive training when all you really need to do is pay for anything you think will be effective. Since you just heard this argument that said short term time frame is all you need, why wouldn't you go with the cheaper short term training? Of course, (D) would not convince someone who insisted that the only thing that would work for her would be the long term training, but that is fine. Our conclusion doesn't need everyone to be on board. It's just generally.

(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.

The fact that the short-term training involves a wider variety of techniques gives me no reason to take the long-term class in violation of the argument's conclusion. Not weakened. (Okay, okay, so maybe there is one guy who hates learning more than 1 or 2 techniques. So he can take the long-term course. Good for him. Generally, though, I assume most people don't have that kind of aversion to learning a couple extra techniques, and thus would have no reason to reject the conclusion after learning this new fact.)

It's all about how the premises support the conclusion, and how the addition of another fact (one of the answers) changes the strength of the relationship between premise(s) and conclusion(s). Causal, non-causal; potato, potato.

#feedback

The real explanation for B

I do not think the video explanation or any of the comments that I read accurately capture why B is wrong.

I submit that B is wrong because of its framing, not its content.

B says: The argument fails to distinguish between the relative number of cases of skin cancer and the severity of those cases in measuring effectiveness at skin cancer prevention.

The problem here is that B suggests there are 2 different ways to measure effectiveness (not that one is superior to the other):

1) the relative number of skin cases

2) the severity of those cases

It then submits that the reasoning is flawed because it does not treat each of these measures independently. However, this line of argument claims that both methods are acceptable for measuring effectiveness.

If both methods are acceptable, then Moore can reply that he used a method of analysis that is acceptable for measuring effectiveness--and thus that his argument is still valid.

In order for B to be a correct answer, it would have to claim that method 1 above (relative number) is not valid for measuring effectiveness, not that there is another equally good way to measure effectiveness.

What would that answer look like?

Imaginary B: The argument overlooks the possibility that people who consistently use sunscreen lotions develop much less severe cases of skin cancer, on average, than people who do not.

I think this answer, were it an option, would be clearly correct. At a higher level, it is an apples to oranges claim: you thought you were comparing like cases, but in fact you are comparing different cases. This is, one might note, the exact same general claim as E. Apples to oranges. Just instead of noting a time difference, you note a severity difference.

This question, then, for me, is a reminder that the content of reasons is not sufficient to make a good answer. The way in which the information is presented, and how it is framed to address the argument, matters. Personally, I like Imaginary B as an answer much more than real E (the right answer). I think Imaginary B is much more rigorous, and reminds me of exactly the kind of thing an anti-sunscreen lobbyist would try to pull over on us. That is why I picked real B. (Perhaps that is why they put real B on in the first place.) But of course that doesn't matter. Imaginary B isn't an option. And real B doesn't cut it.

To reiterate, as it currently exists, B commits the fallacy of saying "there is another way of doing this" (a different measure of effectiveness) to argue that "your way of doing this is wrong." Of course, you can't do that. So B is wrong. And so was I when I picked it.

If you have thoughts, please feel free to comment. I hope this is a clearer explanation than the ones I was reading and watching before.

#feedback There is a grammatical error. Research team is singular, not plural.

#help

Why are your odds of survival 18.5%? Aren't your odds 0.9^8? Which is 43.1%, not 18.5%. 0.9^16 is 18.5%, but I don't see why you would double the exponent.