Self-study
Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that Support among people who used computers at their place of employment last year, those who also owned portable ("laptop") computers earned 25 percent more on average than those who did not. ██ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ █ ██████ ████████ ███ ██ █ █████████████ ████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that owning a laptop leads to a higher-paying job. As evidence, he cites an economist who found that, among people who used computers at work last year, those who owned laptops earned 25% more on average than those who didn’t.
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, he overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe having a higher-paying job allows people to own laptops, not the other way around.
(2) Some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something that causes people to both have higher-paying jobs and own laptops.
14.
Which one of the following ██████████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
It attempts to ███████ █ ████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ █████ ████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ████████████
The conclusion is a fairly broad generalization. However, we have no idea how big the economist’s sample was and we can’t assume that he only studied “a small number of individuals.”
b
Its conclusion merely ████████ █ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where one’s conclusion simply restates a premise. But the author doesn't make this mistake; instead, he confuses correlation for causation.
c
It concludes that ███ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw. The author concludes that owning a laptop causes people to have a higher-paying job, even though it’s more likely that having a higher-paying job causes people to be able to own a laptop.
d
It offers information ██ ███████ ███ █ ██████████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████
The author’s argument simply doesn’t contradict itself in this way. His evidence may not show that his conclusion is true, but it also doesn’t show that his conclusion is false.
e
It uncritically projects █████████ ████████ ██████ ████████████ ████ ███ ███████
The author makes a causal conclusion about something that happened last year. He doesn’t make a predictive conclusion about what will happen indefinitely into the future.