Self-study
Support In university towns, police issue far more parking citations during the school year than they do during the times when the students are out of town. ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument starts with the description of a phenomenon (police in university towns issue more parking citations during the school year than when students are out of town) and then moves to a conclusion that attributes a cause to that phenomenon (that most parking citations in university towns are issued to students).
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “assuming correlation proves causation” flaw. The author notes that police in university towns issue more parking citations during the school year than when students are out of town and, as a result, concludes that most parking citations in university towns are issued to students. However, we have no way of knowing who’s receiving the citations. Sure, an increase in parking citations may be correlated with students being in town, but we can’t definitively conclude that the increased issuance of parking citations is caused by students being in town.
24.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
We know that ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██████████
Wrong flaw. (A) arrives at a sweeping conclusion about snacks (that kids buy most of the snacks at cinemas) by pointing out a trend that only pertains to one type of snack (popcorn sales increase as the proportion of child moviegoers increase at a cinema). In the stimulus, meanwhile, the author arrives at a sweeping conclusion about parking citations in university towns by pointing out a trend that pertains to all parking citations in university towns.
b
We know that ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███████████
Wrong flaw. (B) points out a phenomenon (one plant being greener than another) and then erroneously concludes, without any evidence, that one particular factor (sunlight) must be causing that phenomenon. In the stimulus, meanwhile, the author commits an “assuming correlation proves causation” flaw.
c
We know that ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██ █ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████
No flaw. (C) points out that most people who attend a university study and, by definition, concludes that most people who go to a university are studious.
d
We know that █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████
Wrong flaw. (D) points out a phenomenon (consumers buying more fruit during the summer than during the winter) and then erroneously concludes, without any evidence, that one particular factor (varieties of fruit) must be causing that phenomenon. In the stimulus, meanwhile, the author commits an “assuming correlation proves causation” flaw.
e
We know that ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██ ██ █████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ██████
The argument describes a phenomenon (when other people’s children visit a parent’s house, parents give out more snacks than usual) and arrives at a conclusion that attributes a cause to that phenomenon (most of the snacks parents buy go to other’s children). This commits the same “assuming correlation proves causation” as the stimulus because we have no way of knowing who’s receiving the snacks. We can’t definitively conclude that other people’s kids are receiving the snacks just because parents give out more snacks when other people’s kids are at their house.