Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that 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.
Conclusion (It is obvious from this)
Owning a laptop computer led to a higher-paying job.
Evidence
Among people who computers at their job, people who owned laptop computers earned 25% more than those who did not.
Evaluate
This argument features a classic Correlation to Causation move. Hence, we can use our Explain Curious Fact framework.
The evidence presents a Correlation, the most typical kind of "Curious Fact". The most typical phrasing for a correlation is this: people who are trait A are more likely to be trait B
People who have a laptop are more likely to make 25% more money.
The conclusion is causal, because it uses a causal verb "X led to Y". When LSAT authors look at a correlation, they assume that one half of it caused the other.
This author looks at the correlation between owning laptop || making 25% more
and assumes that owning laptop --led to--> making 25% more
With Explain Curious Fact arguments, we always evaluate 1. could there be some Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? 2. how plausible is the Author's explanation?
Flaw questions primarily care about #1. When an author assumes that a correlation between X and Y means that X causes Y, we're supposed to consider two alternate explanations:
REVERSE CAUSE: Y causes X maybe making 25% more came first, and that led to people buying laptops because they could afford them
3RD FACTOR: Z causes X and Y maybe the sort of jobs that provide their employees with laptops also pay 25% more
Goal
Look for an answer complaining that the author has assumed a causal relationship from a mere correlation, or look for an answer raising the possibility of alternate explanations, such as Reverse Cause or 3rd Factor.