Self-study
In an effort to reduce underage drinking, the Department of Health has been encouraging adolescents to take a pledge not to drink alcohol until they reach the legal age. ████ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ ███████████████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ █████ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ █████ █████ ████ █ ███████
Summarize Argument
The author argues that there’s reason to believe that the government’s plan to reduce underage drinking by having adolescents take a pledge has been successful. This is because a survey of teenagers found that a number of non-drinkers took the pledge, whereas most drinkers didn’t.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a correlation-causation fallacy. The argument takes a weak correlation (the fact that some non-drinkers have taken the pledge) and attempts to use it as evidence that the pledge causes people to not drink. This is particularly weak because it’s likely tainted by selection bias, since people who already abstain from drinking would probably be more likely to take the pledge. Moreover, we don’t even know how strong the correlation is because “many who do not drink” is too vague to determine the pledge’s success rate.
24.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
bases a conclusion █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████
This would describe a premise like “drinking is wrong”, but the argument uses a correlation as support instead. The problem is assuming that this correlation establishes a causal link.
b
fails to consider ████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████ █████████
This is irrelevant because the conclusion is simply that this effort seems to be successful. It doesn’t matter if another method could be more successful.
c
infers from an ███████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████████
This describes the causation-correlation fallacy found in the argument. The premise only establishes a weak correlation between those who take the pledge and those who abstain from drinking, but assumes that this means the pledge is what’s causing people not to drink.
d
treats a condition ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████
The argument doesn’t employ conditional reasoning to reach its conclusion. There is no condition that is sufficient to produce an outcome. The conclusion identifies a supposed causal relationship, but is flawed because it only cites a weak correlation as support.
e
confuses the claim ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████
These two claims are logically equivalent, so this doesn’t speak to the argument’s flaw. The argument’s problem is citing a weak correlation as evidence for a causal relationship.