Self-paced
Videocassette recorders (VCRs) enable people to watch movies at home on videotape. ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ██████ █ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that owning a VCR prompts people to go to the movie theater more. She bases this on a correlation: people who tend to go to the movies more often also own a VCR.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a positive correlation and jumps to the conclusion that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, she overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe going to movies more causes people to get VCRs, not the other way around.
(2) Some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something that causes people to both go to the movies and buy VCRs. (Maybe they simply like movies in general?)
6.
The argument is most vulnerable ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
concludes that a █████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████
The author doesn’t bring up a lack of evidence for any claims. Rather, she reaches her conclusion by presenting evidence in the form of a correlation.
b
cites, in support ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████████
The only evidence cited is a correlation between people who own VCRs and people who go to the movies more often. Everything else in the stimulus is at least consistent with this correlation being true.
c
fails to establish ████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ██████
This describes a key alternative hypothesis that the author ignores. She fails to establish that VCR ownership and moviegoing are not both direct effects of some other, underlying causal factor. (Maybe they’re both effects of simply liking movies in general?)
d
takes a condition ████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██ █ █████████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ █████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary one. The author doesn’t make this mistake, and her argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning. Instead, she uses causal reasoning (and overlooks possible alternative hypotheses in the process).
e
bases a broad █████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of overgeneralization. But the author doesn’t generalize from a limited sample to an overly broad conclusion. Rather, she compares all people who own VCRs to all people who don’t, and so considers all people overall.