Self-study
Support The brain area that enables one to distinguish the different sounds made by a piano tends to be larger in a highly skilled musician than in someone who has rarely, if ever, played a musical instrument. ████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ █ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that playing a musical instrument alters brain structure. As evidence, he notes that the part of the brain responsible for differentiating piano sounds tends to be larger in highly skilled musicians than in people who rarely play an instrument.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author points out a correlation: a certain area of the brain tends to be larger in highly skilled musicians. He then jumps to the conclusion that playing an instrument causes changes to the brain. He overlooks two key alternative hypotheses:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed— maybe having a larger brain area causally contributes to people becoming highly skilled musicians.
(2) Maybe there’s some other, underlying factor that causes both altered brain structure and musical skill.
9.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ █████████
a
The argument presumes, ███████ █████████ ██████████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████ ██████████
The author only says that a certain area of the brain tends to be larger in highly skilled musicians. Presumably this correlation also applies to highly skilled pianists, but he never specifically mentions the brain structure of pianists.
b
The argument fails ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ███████
The author overlooks the possibility that the causal relationship could be reversed. Maybe having a larger brain area causally contributes to people becoming highly skilled musicians, not the other way around.
c
The argument draws █ ██████████ █████ █ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ████████ ██████████ █ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the argument draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He draws a conclusion about musicians’ brain structures from evidence about musicians’ brain structures.
d
The argument fails ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █ ███ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ███████████
The author does address this possibility. He explicitly says that a certain area of the brain is smaller in non-musicians than in highly skilled musicians. The amount of music that people listen to is irrelevant.
e
The argument presumes, ███████ █████████ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████████
The author never makes this assumption. He compares the brain structures of highly skilled musicians and non-musicians (people who “rarely, if ever,” play an instrument). He doesn’t compare highly skilled musicians to other musicians.