"Surprising" Phenomenon
Despite only buying items at a 50%+ discount, the list-less shoppers spent much more money than the shoppers with lists.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why the shoppers without lists spent so much more than the shoppers with lists, despite only buying discount items. The explanation will likely address how many items the respective groups bought, or else the average price the respective groups spent on an item.
A
Only the shoppers who used a list used a shopping cart.
This almost undermines the stimulus. A shopping cart would help shoppers carry more items. For the list-less shoppers to spend more money, they likely bought more items. This doesn’t help.
B
The shoppers who did not use lists bought many unnecessary items.
Even if they bought unnecessary items, we don’t know how many total items the list-less shoppers bought relative to the shoppers with lists. This doesn’t give us enough information to resolve the paradox.
C
Usually, only the most expensive items go on sale in grocery stores.
Those 50% off items were air fryers and high-quality steaks. Sure, the list-less shoppers were getting discounts. But they were splurging on expensive items, hence why they spent more than the shoppers with lists.
D
The grocery store in the study carries many expensive items that few other grocery stores carry.
Even if this is true, we don’t know if those expensive items were on sale and subsequently purchased by the list-less shoppers.
E
The grocery store in the study places relatively few items on sale.
If this is the case, then why did the list-less shoppers spend so much more than the others? If anything, this deepens the paradox.
A
the climbers’ performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was impaired because oxygen deprivation affected their entire brains
If oxygen deprivation affected the climbers’ entire brains, then it’s possible that all of the affected functions are controlled in distinct areas of the brain and that oxygen deprivation is simply worsening them all at the same time.
B
the climbers’ performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was better than average before they were studied
If the climbers’ speech, comprehension, and reasoning were better than average before the study, it wouldn’t change the fact that these functions worsened at higher altitudes. So, even if the author does overlook (B), it doesn’t describe a flaw in his argument.
C
the climbers showed different levels of impairment in their performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning
We should expect that the climbers didn't all experience the exact same level of impairment. What’s important is that all the climbers still showed worsened performance in these functions, even if the impairment was at different levels.
D
some of the effects described were apparent just before the climbers reached 6,100 meters
Even if some effects were apparent just before 6,100 meters, (D) doesn't change the fact that the climbers’ experienced worsened performance due to diminished oxygen at high altitudes.
E
many of the climbers had engaged in special training before the climb because they wanted to improve the efficiency with which their bodies use oxygen
The climbers still all experienced worsened performance in speech, understanding, and judgement, regardless of whether some of them had special training for the climb.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there’s a positive correlation between drinking caffeinated beverages and the development of heart disease. This is based on the fact that studies show there’s a correlation between smoking and heart disease, and a correlation between smoking and drinking caffeinated beverages.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Even if A is positively correlated with B, and A is also positively correlated with C, this doesn’t imply that B is correlated with C.
Here, drinking caffeinated beverages might have no correlation or even a negative correlation with heart disease. Even if smokers are more likely to drink caffeine than the average person, and more likely to have heart disease, the ones who drink caffeine might not be the ones with heart disease. The caffeine-drinkers might be less likely to have heart disease among the smokers.
A
smokers who drink caffeinated beverages are less likely to develop heart disease than are smokers who do not drink caffeinated beverages
If the smokers who drink caffeinated beverages are less likely to develop heart disease than the ones who don’t drink such beverages, this is evidence there’s actually a negative correlation between drinking caffeinated beverages and heart disease among the people who smoke.
B
something else, such as dietary fat intake, may be a more important factor in the development of heart disease than are the factors cited in the argument
The argument doesn’t concern what causes heart disease. The author is simply trying to establish a correlation on the basis of related correlations. But the author doesn’t assume that anything is the cause of something else.
C
drinking caffeinated beverages is more strongly correlated with the development of heart disease than is smoking
This possibility doesn’t help show why caffeinated beverages might not be positively correlated with heart disease. If anything, it does the opposite, suggesting that there might be a positive correlation between caffeinated beverages and heart disease.
D
it is only among people who have a hereditary predisposition to heart disease that caffeine consumption is positively correlated with the development of heart disease
(D) might show that genetic factors play a causal role in heart disease and undermine a hypothesis that caffeine consumption causes heart disease. But (D) presents evidence of a positive correlation between caffeine and heart disease, which supports the author’s conclusion.
E
there is a common cause of both the development of heart disease and behaviors such as drinking caffeinated beverages and smoking
The existence of a common cause doesn’t undermine the possibility of a positive correlation between heart disease and caffeinated beverages. If anything, it supports the existence of a correlation by explaining why they might be correlated.